ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Colombia

Gerry Sutcliffe: What recent support his Department has offered to peace talks in Colombia.

Hugo Swire: The UK is a prominent supporter of the peace process and we have regular discussions with the Colombian Government. Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister reaffirmed the UK’s commitment when President Santos visited London. We are considering now how the UK can best support the implementation of any peace agreement, drawing further on our experiences in Northern Ireland.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Following the Colombian army’s rampage in a village near Turnaco, in which nine bombs were dropped, machine guns were fired at civilians and two young men were shot dead, one of them later by the army as they took him away pleading for his life, with the army then dressing the men in FARC uniforms and claiming they were guerrillas—that incident does not get reported in the world press—is it not right that we have a bilateral ceasefire and not the unilateral ceasefire that keeps being offered by FARC?

Hugo Swire: The big prize remains the ceasefire with FARC, which will benefit all the people of Colombia. I have always been happy to discuss the peace process and human rights with Members of both Houses. In October, I met at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Members from the Parliamentary Friends of Colombia, the all-party group on Latin America and the all-party group on human rights. I am happy to do that again to discuss these things, and I am also putting together a meeting, as I promised, with the Colombian ambassador. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come to the meeting with me, he is more than welcome.

Mark Pritchard: Last December, I visited Colombia, with part of the talks being about reforming the Colombian intelligence services—the DAS. Does the Minister agree that for there to be public
	confidence in the peace process, the Colombian Government need to go further and faster in reforming their intelligence services?

Hugo Swire: I do not think it is for me to give a running commentary on the intelligence services of Colombia. We assist the Colombian Government in our mutual desire to stamp out the drugs trade—we co-operate closely with them on that. A lot of things need to be reformed in Colombia, not least the perception of impunity for the armed forces, but I say again that the big prize is, first, to secure the peace—then the dividend can be cashed in.

Jim Sheridan: The unlawful killings of innocent people in Colombia continue, as they did even last week. I am delighted that the Minister is arranging a meeting with the ambassador, but may I ask him whether he would invite along the Justice for Colombia all-party group, because the people on it are working at the sharp end and can tell us exactly what is happening in Colombia?

Hugo Swire: My meeting really should be for Members of both Houses who wish to accompany me, many of whom are expert advocates for Justice for Colombia.

Martin Horwood: Last week, I met Irrael Solano, indigenous governor of the Zenú community, who is on a death list of the so-called “Caribbean coast commando”. At least 60 members of his community have been assassinated, so he takes that threat very seriously. Will the Government urge the Colombian Government to do whatever they can to protect Señor Solano and other human rights defenders along the Caribbean coast?

Hugo Swire: Indeed, and I think the hon. Gentleman is a perfect candidate to come with me to raise these matters personally with the ambassador in January. We are concerned about human rights defenders, as I have made clear, including when I was in Bogota. I hope that the Colombian Government will realise how keen an interest this House takes in both the peace process and the wider case for justice for all in Colombia.

Mark Durkan: The Minister is aware that a number of Northern Ireland Members have engaged both with the Colombian Government and the FARC negotiators in Havana. Is he also aware that we are particularly concerned that the democratic opposition in Colombia, which is not represented at the negotiations, should have its position affirmed because it, along with civil society groups, has a key role to play in taking the peace process forward—a peace process for which it has fought so long?

Hugo Swire: All have a role to play in gaining peace in that country, which has been ruined by the civil war with FARC. When I was recently in Cuba, as the first British Minister to visit in 10 years, I raised this matter with Cuba, which is playing host to the peace process. I say again that these negotiations with FARC are quite a long way through and what we need to see is a final settlement with FARC—we have just seen the release of the brigadier general and the others who were taken by
	FARC within the last month or so. That remains the big prize and everybody should have a say in the peace that will ensue from that.

Kerry McCarthy: Land grabs have been a predominant feature of the conflict, and restitution of land is a key part of the peace discussions. With the Government promoting business opportunities in Colombia, will the Minister say what guidance they issue to UK companies on forced displacements and what safeguards they insist on to ensure that the UK is not supporting economic projects using illegally acquired land?

Hugo Swire: All British companies anywhere in the world are issued with guidelines on ethical investment, and those operating in Colombia are no exception. I am delighted that in 2013 we met our £1.75 billion bilateral trade and investment target for Colombia two years ahead of schedule. We have now set a revised target of £4 billion by 2020. Growth stood at 126% from 2009-12. Ethical investment is important, but so too are investment and bilateral trade. We are a Government who believe that increased trade is the sea on which all ships rise together. That benefits all in Colombia, even the poorest.

EU: UK Membership

Anne McIntosh: What steps he has taken to prepare for renegotiation of the terms of the UK's membership of the EU with his EU counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

Maria Miller: What assessment he has made of the scope for reform of the EU under the new European Commission.

Philip Hammond: I have already visited 10 member states over the past few months to discuss EU reform with my counterparts and others. More and more leaders across Europe agree that the EU needs to change. We have already made progress: the June European Council agreed that EU reform was necessary and that the UK’s concerns should be addressed.

Anne McIntosh: I wish the Foreign Secretary well in his renegotiation. Does he share my view that we should be confident about achieving it? Some areas will require treaty change but others will not, particularly as there is common interest in benefits for migrant workers and in limiting the access shared by Germany, Denmark and other member states.

Philip Hammond: I agree that we should be optimistic about the scope for achieving change in the European Union because more and more of our EU partners agree with the agenda that we have set out. They agree that the European Union must reform to survive and prosper in the future. But it goes further than that. We have already had success: our Prime Minister is the first one ever to have negotiated a reduction in the EU budget; we have opted out of the eurozone bail-out fund; and we have secured vital protections for non-eurozone countries in the banking union. I am confident that we will secure the reforms that the EU so urgently
	needs to be more competitive and more democratically accountable and, crucially, to make it acceptable to the British people, who, under a Conservative Government, will be the ones who have the last say in 2017.

Maria Miller: The British people should have the final say on the UK’s relationship with the EU, and I applaud the Prime Minister’s approach on an in/out referendum. The constituents who contact me support a trading partnership with Europe, but not a political union. Will the Secretary of State emphasise the vital importance of trade when discussing the future of the UK in the European Union? My constituents who work for major multinational companies headquartered in Basingstoke want to know that that is at the forefront of our negotiations.

Philip Hammond: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. Trade is at the heart of the European Union. Completing and deepening the single market and extending it into the digital, energy and services markets—areas on which we have scarcely scratched the surface—is the way to deliver economic growth in the European Union in the future, together with completing international trade treaties such as the transatlantic trade and investment partnership that will also hugely expand our opportunities.

Gisela Stuart: We are not part of the eurozone and neither is Poland. Part of a reformed European Union will have to accommodate those countries that are not part of the eurozone. When did the Secretary of State last meet his Polish counterpart to discuss what that new architecture might look like?

Philip Hammond: I have had a couple of meetings with my new Polish counterpart and had more extensive meetings with the former Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski. I will be going to Brussels later on this afternoon and will have the opportunity to meet my Polish counterpart again. What the hon. Lady says is absolutely right. An essential emerging feature of the new EU architecture is the fact of the eurozone and the non-eurozone. If those countries in the eurozone wish to pursue closer political integration, they will be able to do so. Those countries that are outside the eurozone must be assured of the integrity of the single market, even though they will not take part in that process.

Barry Sheerman: When the Secretary of State is meeting all his important European Union people, will he tell them that there are many people in this country and in this House who value the peace and prosperity that the European Union has brought to this country? Given the threatening world in which we live with President Putin and all the other things that are happening, we value that relationship and want to build on it.

Philip Hammond: Of course we value the benefits that being in the European Union brings us, principally through the single market but also with security, as we have seen in the confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. What we now need to do is address the bits of the European Union that are not working effectively, that are holding Europe back so that it is no longer competitive
	in the world and that represent a failure of democratic accountability so that we get a European Union that is acceptable to the British people. We as a Conservative Government will allow the British people to have the final say on that.

Malcolm Rifkind: I caution my right hon. Friend that it is rarely wise to reveal too much detail of one’s negotiating objectives more than six months before the negotiations can possibly begin. In such circumstances, one’s negotiating partners tend to give a very hostile response even in areas where they might ultimately be willing to compromise.

Philip Hammond: My right hon. and learned Friend’s advice is very wise. I think the correct approach is probably to show a little ankle, but not too much. We need to be clear to our European Union partners that we are entering negotiations with a constructive agenda. We want to get a reformed European Union and a renegotiated relationship between Britain and the European Union that is acceptable to the British people, but the hurdle is high because it will be the British people, under a Conservative Government, who make the decision in a referendum in 2017.

Douglas Alexander: In his first answer this morning, the Foreign Secretary was specific about the number of European countries he has visited as Foreign Secretary, so will he now be specific about at least some of the repatriations he is seeking from the European Union? Even a little ankle will do.

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman’s question was slightly unfortunately timed, given the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). Of course we do not want to run around Europe at this stage in the negotiations with a list of specific repatriations. It is far more important to establish the principle and how we will deliver it—that is, the principle of subsidiarity and how it will be effectively overseen within the European Union.

Douglas Alexander: I think that the whole House, including the Foreign Secretary’s Back Benchers, will have noted the unwillingness to name even a single repatriation, but one will do when he gets back to his feet. What is the Government’s estimate of the economic benefit of the UK’s membership of the European Union?

Philip Hammond: As I have said, we are clear that the UK benefits enormously from access to the single market in Europe. We want to remain part of the European Union and we are entering these negotiations on the basis of a clear intent to negotiate the very best deal we can for Britain, addressing the concerns clearly expressed by the British people. In the end, it will be the British people who decide whether that package is good enough.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any change in our relationship with the European Union should be based on trade and co-operation and not on political union?

Philip Hammond: We want trade and co-operation to flourish in the European Union and we do not subscribe to the view that ever-closer union is the answer for United Kingdom. I regard it as significant progress that in the conclusions of the June European Council this year we had for the first time an explicit recognition that not every country will pursue the same level of integration and closer union. That is progress.

Incitement to Hatred (Palestinian Media)

Louise Ellman: What assessment he has made of the effects of incitement to hatred in the Palestinian media on prospects for a peace settlement in that region.

Philip Hammond: I am aware of recent provocative material published in parts of the Palestinian press. We deplore incitement on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and we are clear that inflammatory language and images damage still further the already fragile prospect of peace settlement.

Louise Ellman: Official Palestinian Authority TV has praised as martyrs the terrorists who mowed down civilians on the streets of Jerusalem and the terrorists who killed rabbis and others at prayer in a Jerusalem synagogue. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is about perpetuating hatred and violence rather than promoting peace?

Philip Hammond: Yes, and we do not hesitate to raise these instances of incitement with the Palestinian Authority. I spoke to President Abbas last night and raised these issues with him while at the same time thanking him for his personal robust condemnation of the synagogue attack in West Jerusalem. We have to raise these issues whenever they occur, but we should also praise robust responses by leaders of the Palestinian Authority when they make them.

Julian Huppert: None of us would condone the incitement of hatred, and there is no doubt that there are people on each side who make matters worse, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that illegal settlements, extra-judicial punishments and discriminatory laws also make the search for a peace settlement much harder?

Philip Hammond: Yes, we are clear that settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law and, perhaps even more importantly, deeply unhelpful to the prospects of a peace process. We urge the Israelis on every opportunity to cease the settlement programme. If we are to move forward into peace talks, which I fervently hope we can do in the coming weeks and months, there will have to be a cessation of settlement activity while that process is ongoing.

Andrew McDonald: The Israeli Knesset will soon vote on the Jewish state Bill, which would deny national rights to Israeli’s minorities, remove Arabic as a national language and assert that Israeli’s identity as a Jewish state comes before its nature as a democracy. At a time when tensions between Jews and Arabs are running high, does the Foreign
	Secretary agree that it is wrong for the Government of Israel to press ahead with that discriminatory piece of legislation?

Philip Hammond: That is a piece of legislation before the Israeli Parliament, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are always opposed to discriminatory legislation. Depriving people who are resident within a state of their citizenship and discriminating against them with regard to language will never be conducive to the peaceful co-existence that I think virtually everybody seeks for Israel and Palestine.

Bob Russell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that public opinion in the UK is moving strongly against Israel because it is morally indefensible to support a state that has policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid?

Philip Hammond: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the reasons, but I agree that public opinion is moving against Israel in a country that has traditionally been understanding of the Israeli position. We have made the point strongly to Israeli Ministers and politicians that they are losing the argument and public opinion not only in Britain, but in Europe and, perhaps more importantly for them, in the United States.

Gerald Kaufman: What will be the effect on the Palestinian media of the renewed Israeli policy of demolishing the houses of offenders, thus making their families homeless and punishing the entire family for the crimes of one person? Is not that inhumane, and ought it not to be stopped?

Philip Hammond: We do not approve of the collective punishment strategy and make our views on that very well known on every possible occasion. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an analysis of the impact on the Palestinian media, but I can see exactly where he is coming from. We will continue robustly to oppose policies of collective punishment.

Palestine

Michael Connarty: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the vote by the House on 13 October 2014 on recognising Palestine as a state alongside Israel.

Tobias Ellwood: This weekend marks 67 years since the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which recommended a two-state solution, and it has been 21 years since the Oslo peace accords, so it is no wonder that Parliaments and citizens around the world are calling for debates and for leadership in implementing plans that were devised and agreed decades ago. However, British recognition of Palestine must be not just symbolic but strategic and used in the wider context of securing that solution.

Michael Connarty: I think I half-thank the Minister for that answer, because really he has not done anything, and nor have this Government, to recognise what Parliament
	has said. By 274 votes to 12 we called for recognition. Some 40% of Labour Friends of Israel voted for that recognition, as did 40 Conservative Members of Parliament. What will it take to get this Government to stand up, do the right thing, get out from under the shadow of the USA and speak for the UK Parliament?

Tobias Ellwood: Well, I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the right thing. We can only use this card once, and we need to use it sensibly. We need to bring parties back to the table. This Government share Parliament’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian state but as a contribution to a negotiated two-state solution. We are in the process of getting people back around the table. That is what John Kerry is committed to, and that is what should happen next.

Peter Bone: I accept what the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said about the Back-Bench debate, and I think it was unfortunate that the Government did not ask more Members to be here to express those views. I take the view myself that if we are going to get peace, the overall position is that a recognition of Palestine has to come at the same time as an overall peace agreement. Do the Government agree that that is the best way forward?

Tobias Ellwood: I pay tribute not only to the debate that took place in this Chamber but the debate that took place yesterday called by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and prompted by an e-petition signed by over 100,000 constituents. We do pay attention to these issues. Bilateral recognition would not end the occupation. Without a negotiated settlement, the occupation and the problems that come with it would still continue. That is why, at the stage we are at now, we must invite people back to the table, and I hope this will happen very soon.

Lisa Nandy: The Minister said that the Government can only play this card once. After the horrific events in Gaza over the summer and the recent violent clashes in the west bank and Jerusalem, will he tell this House how many more children have to die before the Government decide that it is the right time to play the card to give the Palestinian people an equal seat at the negotiating table, and recognise that recognition of the Palestinian state is a contribution to meaningful negotiations and not a consequence of them?

Tobias Ellwood: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but if she had attended yesterday’s debate she would be aware that the whole world is concerned about this. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, has said, “Is this what we do—reconstruct and then it gets destroyed, reconstruct and then it gets destroyed?” We must bring people to the table to make sure that there is a long-term solution to the problems and so that we do not see another Operation Cast Lead, Operation Pillar of Defence or Operation Protective Edge. That requires both sides to come together, and there is much work to do before Britain is going to be ready to recognise Palestine as a state.

Richard Burden: Will the Minister consider for a minute how it would sound to a Palestinian to hear him say that recognition of their
	right to self-determination is a card to be played, any more than how it would sound to an Israeli to say that recognition of Israel is a card to be played? What is he actually doing to talk to European partners to secure recognition and not to put the day off?

Tobias Ellwood: Forgive me if my comment sounded flippant—that was not my intention at all. Anybody who attended the debate yesterday, or indeed the debate that took place in this Chamber, will know of my personal commitment to working with people on both sides. I spent some time in Israel. I visited Gaza and saw the destruction with my own eyes. I should also underline the commitment that Britain is making to the reconstruction; that was outlined when I attended the conference in Cairo. I say again that it is important that given where we are in the process, with John Kerry about to embark on a new round of talks, that is what we should allow to take place at this very moment.

Falkland Islands

Gareth Johnson: What steps the Government are taking to support Falkland Islanders experiencing harassment by the Argentine Government.

Hugo Swire: As I said only yesterday to representatives of the Falklands Islands Government who were in London for the Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council, this Government remain steadfastly committed to the defence and security of the Falklands. We will continue to speak up for the islanders’ right to self-determination and to provide them with support as they seek to develop and internationalise their economy.

Gareth Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, particularly his reference to self-determination for the Falkland Islanders. Does he agree that anything other than self-determination would be nothing other than an affront to the 255 British servicemen who gave their lives during the Falklands conflict?

Hugo Swire: Yes, I entirely agree. As a result of that conflict, we are still mine-clearing on the islands. I congratulate BACTEC, the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency that has just secured the contract to carry out the fourth phase of de-mining in the Falklands. The people of the Falkland Islands have spoken. I was there in February. There was a 92% turnout, and 99.8% voted yes. People in the region should respect their human rights and their rights to self-determination.

Mike Gapes: The Minister will know that there is going to be an election in Argentina soon and that rhetoric against the Falkland Islands usually increases considerably in such periods. What representations are the Government making to other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, including some that are in receipt of British development assistance, to try to neutralise the rhetoric that will come out of Argentina?

Hugo Swire: We do not seek to neutralise anything; we just seek to tell it as it is and we encourage the Falkland islanders, who are by far the best advocates, to travel
	around the region to tell others about their life. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we anticipate an increase in rhetoric, threats and intimidation as we approach the election, but we are hopeful that after it we might be able to have a more mature and sophisticated relationship with whoever will be the President of Argentina.

ISIL

Rehman Chishti: What further support the Government plan to provide to the coalition effort to defeat ISIL.

Tobias Ellwood: Britain is one of 60 countries participating in a coalition to defeat ISIL and we are making a significant contribution, including the air campaign and training Iraqi ground forces. The training of those local forces is critical in order for them to take and hold the ground, maintain security and begin the process of stabilisation and governance.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Minister for that answer. He will know that ISIL needs to be defeated in Iraq and Syria. Two years ago, I raised with the then Foreign Secretary the creation of safe havens on the border of Turkey and Syria. They could now be used by the Free Syrian Army as a launching pad to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria as well as the brutal Assad regime. I understand that some Arab countries have raised the issue with the United Kingdom. Will we support them?

Tobias Ellwood: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. We have had discussions with our Turkish counterparts and others, and General John Allen is also looking at the issue. It needs to be considered in the wider context of the campaign and it is on the table at the moment, but that is as far as it goes.

John Woodcock: Do the Government recognise that the failure of reconstruction after the last Iraq war shows that any military effort will be insufficient unless the UK does far more to engage with its partners and allies, to enable good governance in currently ungoverned spaces in Iraq and Syria to prevail?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman raises a critical point. The international community, especially Iraq’s neighbours and Iraq itself, must play a crucial role in providing assistance and technical support and governance and stabilisation once the fighting has happened. We are seeing successes: Iraqi forces have liberated the key town of Baiji, and the National Guard programme is formalising the militia structure, to improve security as well as command and control. They are stopping ISIL in its tracks and pushing it back, out of Iraq. This is a turning point.

James Gray: I pay tribute to our superb efforts in Iraq, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that we are not going to defeat ISIL—the question is about defeating ISIL, not containing it—by doing what we are doing at the moment. We will defeat ISIL only if we engage politically with the Government in Baghdad
	and find ways of engaging with the friendly Sunni forces in Iraq. What discussions are the Government having with Baghdad about how they can extend their political influence?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is the inclusivity of the al-Abadi Government, in contrast with the Malaki Government, that is making sure that Sunnis are included in Iraq and Baghdad. It is therefore important that they, not us, take the space, which is why the boots on the ground are Iraqi boots, not ours, so that they can move towards more inclusive governance and reconstruction capability.

Meg Munn: Many Yazidi Kurdish women have been abducted by the so-called Islamic State. They have been held as slaves and raped. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is more publicity about the issue and that we do more to stop these crimes against humanity?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point that underlines exactly why ISIL and its ideology must be removed from Iraq and, indeed, Syria, and prevented from spreading elsewhere. We are working very closely with our Kurdish counterparts on this very issue. I shall visit the region soon and raise the matter.

Gareth Thomas: One crucial part of the effort to defeat ISIL is surely to help those made even more vulnerable by its advance. Given that the World Food Programme has had to suspend assistance to almost 2 million Syrians, what action are Ministers taking to help to ensure that the World Food Programme can resume its efforts to ease the plight of Syrian refugees?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. While we discuss military matters and indeed governance, an entire generation is suffering in Syria itself. Britain is one of the largest donors to Syria. We have committed over £700 million in aid to provide support on the very issues he talked about, and we have also provided £23 million-worth of aid to Iraq. If I may, I shall look into the issues concerning the World Food Programme and get back to him.

Middle East

Jim McGovern: What steps his Department is taking to help bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders back to peace talks.

David Mowat: What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of a two-state solution emerging in the middle east.

Philip Hammond: The UK is fully supporting US-led efforts, working with the Egyptians, to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders back to negotiations aimed at achieving a lasting peace. We are also working with European partners, especially France and Germany, to support that US-led process.

Jim McGovern: I thank the Minister for his answer. The point that I want to make was possibly covered earlier, but it is so serious that it is worthy of repetition.
	Illegal Israeli settlements are causing friction, to say the least, and they are a roadblock in the peace process. What is the Secretary of State doing with his EU counterparts to challenge this and to make sure that there are no roadblocks?

Philip Hammond: As I said earlier and have said on previous occasions in the House, the settlements are illegal. We condemn them, and every time a new one is proposed, we make that view known to the Israeli Government. But I have gone further than that, and I repeat today that we have to be clear that we will not allow the fact of illegal settlements to define the shape of an eventual settlement. We cannot allow one of the parties to this conflict to build themselves into a position to dictate the eventual peace. Settlements can be built and settlements can be removed, but every settlement that is built is illegal and it cannot be allowed to stand immovably in the way of the peace process.

David Mowat: The Secretary of State has talked about the preference for a successful peace process, but actions speak louder than words. The 1,000 acre land grab around Bethlehem in September surely indicates that Israel does not really have the serious intention of allowing a two-state solution. Given that, should we not be thinking about how we are going to recognise Palestine?

Philip Hammond: This is not an excuse, but a great deal of domestic politics is involved in this issue. The 1,000 acres that my hon. Friend mentioned have not, as I understand it, been developed in any way; it was simply a designation. It is unacceptable, but it is a political statement, and we have to make sure that it does not stand in the way of an eventual two-state solution.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that colleagues will have to see what opportunities are presented during topical questions. Progress today has been incredibly slow, and we have a lot of questions to get through.

EU Food Imports

Margaret Ritchie: What recent assessment he has made of the effects of Russia’s ban on EU food imports.

David Lidington: We estimate that about £4.5 billion of EU food exports stand to be affected, of which the UK share amounts to £39 million. At the same time, import restrictions have led to price increases to Russian shoppers of about 15%.

Margaret Ritchie: Russia’s ban on EU food imports has contributed to the creation of an imbalance between market demand and supply in the dairy industry, particularly in Northern Ireland, where we rely greatly on exports. In view of that, will the Minister have immediate discussions with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with a view to pursuing other global markets for the dairy industry?

David Lidington: I completely understand the hon. Lady’s point about producers in Northern Ireland. As she knows, some EU compensation arrangements are available, but she has put her finger on the really important point. My colleagues in DEFRA and UK Trade & Investment want to work with producers in Northern Ireland and elsewhere both to access the EU funds available for getting into alternative markets and to promote the excellent produce from Northern Ireland in third markets worldwide.

Richard Ottaway: Given that Russia’s food import problems are due to the financial sanctions imposed on it by the EU because of Russia’s illegal behaviour in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and given that yesterday the rouble had its worst day since the 1990s, does the Minister agree that financial sanctions will bring Russia to the negotiating table, and will he continue with them?

David Lidington: Russia has certainly suffered heavily as a result of the imposition of sanctions in the way that my right hon. Friend describes. We have seen a flight of capital out of Russia, as well as the precipitate fall in the value of the rouble. I hope that the Russian leadership will accept that it is in the interests of the Russian people to implement the Minsk agreement with Ukraine in full and, in particular, to return to Ukraine control of her sovereign borders.

Pat McFadden: Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), world leaders rightly made their views known about the Russian actions in Ukraine at the recent G20 summit in Australia. Will the Minister say more about the effect that he thinks the sanctions and the recent fall in the oil price are having on Russia and, in particular, whether he believes that the combined effect is producing a change in Russian attitudes towards fostering nationalism in Ukraine and possibly in other countries with Russian-speaking minorities?

David Lidington: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s implicit point that we are concerned not just about Ukraine, but about the doctrine of a right to intervene in support of Russian speakers anywhere in the world. The answer to his question is that, sadly, we are not yet seeing a return to serious talks and the implementation of the Minsk peace agreement by the Russian leadership, but the impact of sanctions on the Russian economy, coupled with the decline in oil prices, is catastrophic. It is in the interests of the Russian people that we see a change.

Andrew Robathan: What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the people of Russia and on Russian public opinion of the effect of the sanctions and the declining oil price?

David Lidington: The people of Russia—ordinary families—are bearing the brunt of the cost of the Kremlin’s adventurism in Ukraine through much higher inflation, a lack of access to high-quality, good-value imported produce, and a decline, every week, in the value of the rouble in their pockets.

Malaysia

Tom Greatrex: When he next plans to visit Malaysia.

Hugo Swire: I plan to visit Malaysia early next year. My visit will coincide with the start of Malaysia’s chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and its elevation to a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council. My discussions will focus on issues of mutual interest, including trade, security, the Commonwealth and human rights. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary looks forward to welcoming Malaysia’s Foreign Minister to London next week.

Tom Greatrex: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that last week, the Malaysian Government went back on their pledge to repeal the sedition law, and are instead entrenching and extending its characteristics. He will also be aware that there is growing international concern that the law is being used to imprison political opponents and religious minorities, particularly the Christian community. Will he and the Foreign Secretary undertake to ensure that those issues are raised with the Malaysian Government in their engagements over the next few weeks?

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reminds me that such issues always are raised. He will certainly raise them. We are aware of the recent comments by Prime Minister Najib regarding the Malaysian sedition laws. We will look at his comments about the proposed legislation closely. We are clear that the Malaysian Government should conform to international standards and norms.

Hezbollah

Philip Hollobone: What estimate he has made of the number of rockets in Hezbollah’s arsenal in southern Lebanon which could be deployed against Israel; and what diplomatic efforts his Department is making to seek a reduction in that number.

Tobias Ellwood: We are aware of continued reports of Hezbollah’s arsenal of weapons in southern Lebanon. Those weapons pose a threat to regional security and are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

Philip Hollobone: Hezbollah’s extensive arsenal contravenes UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701, which call on it to disarm, yet the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon has not stopped the re-arming of Hezbollah and rarely inspects Hezbollah-controlled villages for illicit activity. Given that every Israeli city is now within range of the rockets, will the Minister use his good offices in the UN to ensure that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon has the resources it needs to police southern Lebanon effectively?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That matter was raised with me during my visit to Israel. We are committed to supporting peace and stability in Lebanon. Since 2012, the UK has been
	delivering a $31-million programme to train and equip the land border regiments to provide stability. More work needs to be done with the UN and we must ensure that Hezbollah agrees to the UN resolutions.

Frank Roy: Lebanon’s position in the middle east is being destabilised by the fact that a quarter of the population is made up of Syrian refugees. The United Nations has called for countries throughout the world to resettle at least 130,000 of those refugees. Why have only 90 been allowed into the United Kingdom?

Tobias Ellwood: As has been made clear before, we feel that it is best that refugees are kept closer to the region so that they can return. The whole House should pay tribute to Lebanon for its work in taking 1.2 million refugees, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, is almost a quarter of its population. The UK Government have provided more than £273 million to help with stability in the area and to support refugees there.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Stephen Metcalfe: What recent progress the Government have made on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership.

David Lidington: The seventh round of negotiations concluded in October, and our ambition remains to agree a deal next year that could benefit the average British family by £400 a year.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he confirm that as part of his negotiations, he will reiterate that signing TTIP is not the start of the privatisation of the NHS?

David Lidington: I can absolutely confirm that to my hon. Friend. In early October, both the United States and EU chief negotiators made it clear in public statements that there would be no provisions in the trade agreement that would limit the ability of Governments to regulate health provision or other public services.

David Hanson: At a meeting in my constituency last Friday, those very concerns about the privatisation of the health service were raised, as were concerns about the reduction in minimum standards such as the minimum wage and conditions at work, and about the ability of a UK Government to put conditions on suppliers to the UK. Can the Minister give my constituents some reassurances on those points?

David Lidington: I would like to think that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was not going to add to the scaremongering rumours that he has just described, especially given that the Government in whom he served were an ardent champion of this trade deal with the United States. It is clear that the TTIP deal will not limit the ability of Governments to legislate for, or to regulate, public services. It will provide businesses large and small in this country with enormous opportunities
	to get access to a US market of 300 million customers, and the entire House should be united in supporting that.

EU (Freedom of Movement)

Nicholas Dakin: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on freedom of movement within the EU.

Philip Hammond: I have discussed EU migration extensively with my counterparts as part of a series of visits to EU capitals to discuss EU reform and renegotiation. We are not alone in seeing EU migration as a qualified right. We secured reference in the June European Council conclusions to the need to protect EU migration from misuse, and last week the Prime Minister set out his proposals for doing just that.

Nicholas Dakin: Will the Secretary of State confirm that we should use the Dano judgment, which confirmed that member states have significant leeway, to ensure that people who come to the UK come to work, not to claim? Will he also confirm that we can do that without threatening our position as a member of the EU?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Dano judgment has once again shown that sometimes we in this country assume that the body of EU regulation requires us to do things that it actually does not. We sometimes find, as we did in that case, that there is more flexibility to work within the existing treaty powers than is assumed.

Topical Questions

Pauline Latham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: Since the last Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, I and my team have been focused on the major foreign policy challenges facing the UK—ISIL in Iraq and Syria, Russian aggression in Ukraine, the middle east peace process, Libya and the Ebola outbreak. In addition, I have been continuing my programme of visits to EU capitals, exploring the common ground that exists on the need for EU reform, explaining Britain’s requirements for its future relationship with Europe and listening to the views of parliamentarians, academics, journalists, commentators, Ministers and Government officials across the continent.

Pauline Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. What assessment has he made of the co-ordination across Whitehall Departments in delivering the Government’s response to Ebola, both in Sierra Leone and here in the UK?

Philip Hammond: Over the summer I led the Government’s cross-departmental response, involving a huge amount of resource from the Department for International Development, the mobilisation of our diplomatic networks by the Foreign Office, and a massive infusion of manpower and capability by the Ministry of Defence. The people
	of Britain can be immensely proud of the way that the UK has stepped up to the plate and, using a combination of military and civilian resources, delivered real effect on the ground in Sierra Leone.

Douglas Alexander: The Foreign Secretary has just paid generous tribute to the Department for International Development, and I echo those sentiments. However, he is reported to have recently called the Government’s own commitment to enshrine in law a pledge to spend 0.7% of UK GDP on international aid as “bizarre” when he was thousands of miles away from Westminster—[Interruption.] Some Members seem to agree with that sentiment. Ahead of Friday’s discussions of this issue in the House, is he prepared to repeat that judgment at the Dispatch Box today or has he had his mind changed?

Philip Hammond: Unlike the Government in whom the right hon. Gentleman served, we have delivered the 0.7% target. We made a political commitment to do it and we have delivered on that political commitment. Talk about the need to legislate is yesterday’s discussion. We are doing it—something he never did.

Alistair Burt: Stability in north Africa—in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, where there has been remarkable progress by the Tunisian people—has been helped immeasurably by the United Kingdom’s Arab Partnership programme. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that programme will continue and that, just because there is some success in those areas, we will not take our eye off the ball or off the need to do more in north Africa?

Tobias Ellwood: My right hon. Friend can take part of the credit for some of the success stories that we have seen in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. He is right that we should not forget these countries. Bilateral trade continues to flourish and the Arab Partnership scheme is very important. I visited Algeria last week and we look forward to the Prime Minister’s visit when he comes here next week.

Bridget Phillipson: In Uganda there appears to be renewed attempts to target and persecute the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. If the Ugandan Government proceed with new legislation in this area, what will be the impact on bilateral relations with the UK?

James Duddridge: The FCO’s work to combat violence and discrimination on the basis of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights is an important part of our international work in Uganda and elsewhere. I have made representations to the Ugandan Government and will continue to do so, and I will continue to work with NGOs and parliamentarians interested in this issue. It is a high priority for the British Government and for me.

Alok Sharma: The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that any renegotiation with the EU will have trade at its
	heart, which my constituents welcome ahead of the referendum, but does the Minister envisage concurrent discussions on bilateral free trade agreements with high-growth economies such as India, which will be needed in case the British people choose to leave the EU, or will any such discussions come after the referendum vote?

David Lidington: As my hon. Friend knows, the treaty provisions are that the EU has exclusive competence over international trade negotiations, which means that we benefit from the collective leverage of a market of about 500 million people in prising open access to third markets. As regards India, the Prime Minister raised with the Indian Prime Minister at Brisbane the need to reopen the EU-India talks on free trade which had been paused because of the Indian election. We hope very much that Mr Modi’s Government will want to take that forward now.

Diana Johnson: Is the Minister really saying that Britain has fulfilled its commitment by taking 90 of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, when 130,000 need to be resettled around the world?

Philip Hammond: The UK Government have taken the view that because we expect Syria to be rebuilt with a new and democratic future, we want to support these people as close to their home as possible. Britain is proud to be the second largest international donor of humanitarian aid to Syria, supporting those communities so that they will eventually be able to return and rebuild their country.

Dominic Raab: The Foreign Secretary knows that my constituent, Ollie Gobat, was brutally murdered in St Lucia in an apparent assassination. I am grateful that officials are discussing assurances on the death penalty to allow UK police to support the investigation, at St Lucia’s request, but we are seven months on from Ollie’s murder. The death penalty has not been applied in 19 years. Will the Minister pick up the phone to the St Lucian Prime Minister and help to resolve the outstanding issues so that we can get justice for Ollie and his family?

James Duddridge: This is indeed a tragic and brutal murder, and my heart goes out to the Gobat family. I wrote to the St Lucian Prime Minister on 14 October to seek assurances that any person convicted of this crime will not receive the death penalty, and following my hon. Friend’s excellent work, yesterday I wrote to the St Lucian high commissioner to press him on this issue. I will take up the suggestion to phone the St Lucian Prime Minister if an answer is not forthcoming, and I will speak to my hon. Friend as soon as I have done so.

John Woodcock: The Secretary of State is a former Transport Secretary, so will he admit to motorists in my constituency and other rural areas that the Government’s bid for a rural fuel discount has completely failed because he has no friends in Europe?

Philip Hammond: The UK has many friends in Europe, and one of the most striking things of the past four and a half months has been that everywhere I have gone in Europe, it has been emphasised to me—again in Italy last week—how central Britain’s role is to the European Union. Indeed, my Italian counterpart said clearly that he cannot imagine a European Union without Britain at its heart.

Rehman Chishti: I previously raised the case of Asia Bibi with the Prime Minister, and authored a letter signed by 57 Members of Parliament from across the House calling for justice in this case. I understand that the Prime Minister raised the case with Prime Minister Sharif, but what was his response? Is Prime Minister Sharif prepared to reform these laws, because I have spoken to the senior leadership of the main opposition in Pakistan, the PPP, and it is prepared to work with him to do that?

Tobias Ellwood: Asia Bibi is a Christian woman who was sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2010. That sentence has obviously provoked international condemnation, and was the first death sentence handed to a woman under Pakistan’s new blasphemy laws. We are deeply concerned that the Pakistan court has upheld the imposition of the death penalty, and we hope the verdict will be overturned on appeal. The Prime Minister will be in the Chamber tomorrow, and I understand that he and the Foreign Secretary will try to raise this matter again.

Kevin Barron: Aston academy secondary school in my constituency and Makunduchi school on the island of Zanzibar in Tanzania have had a link for more than 20 years, with regular visits of staff and pupils from both schools to one another, lifting the horizons of young people in both countries. How does the Minister’s Department support such twinning arrangements?

James Duddridge: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question, not least because I remember visiting Aston school in 2001 when I was a parliamentary candidate in Rother Valley. More recently, as Minister for Africa I have visited a number of schools, and twinning arrangements such as that in Zanzibar are a fantastic way to support schools and build understanding of what the British Government are doing by supporting the DFID budget and the foreign affairs team. I recommend that more colleagues encourage such schemes in their constituencies, just like the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who supports an excellent scheme in Lesotho.

Hugh Robertson: In his answer to question 11, the Minister mentioned the welcome assistance given by this country to the Lebanese border regiment. Will he look again at that, particularly in Lebanon and Jordan, to see what further assistance we could give armed forces in those countries to prevent contagion from Syria and Iraq?

Tobias Ellwood: I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend when he covered this portfolio. He will be aware from his visit to the region of the start of a programme to build watchtowers, and the MOD is very much involved in that to prevent ISIL from running
	across the border and taking hostages. More funds are being provided for that successful programme, and I will be visiting Lebanon soon.

David Winnick: For nearly half a century, on and off, I have heard Ministers say that they are committed on behalf of the British Government to justice for Palestinians, yet the situation has deteriorated for Palestinians over that time—it is has certainly not improved in any way. Would recognising a Palestinian state not show a genuine commitment on behalf of the United Kingdom that we want justice for Palestinians, as well as ensuring that the state of Israel is secure?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman’s timeline merely serves to underscore how complex, difficult and intractable the problem is. Our commitment to a two-state solution is loudly expressed at every opportunity—no one can be in any doubt about it—but, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has made clear, recognition is a tool to be used in trying to bring about the peace settlement all hon. Members ardently desire.

David Nuttall: May I just say what a great school Aston academy is? Of course, it was Aston comprehensive when I went there, but I will not ask about that.
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that millions of people around the country will have taken the Prime Minister’s speech last week on immigration as setting out that the revision of the rules on benefit claimants would be a red line in the renegotiation?

Philip Hammond: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend both on Aston academy and on the Prime Minister’s speech last Friday. The right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) called for clarity on our agenda with the European Union. He got clarity from the Prime Minister on Friday, but I have not heard him acknowledge that.

Angus MacNeil: In this Question Time, Members have mentioned official Palestinian media and TV, and the Palestinian Authority. Effectively, they are talking about the apparatus of a Palestinian state. Surely calls for peace should be heard with equal respect for both Israel and Palestine. Is it not time the UK Government followed this House of Commons and gave recognition to the Palestinian state, which would be the first stage of the two-state solution?

Philip Hammond: This is a bit like groundhog day. The Government will recognise a Palestinian state at a time of our choosing. We will choose that time on the basis that it is designed to deliver the maximum possible impetus to the peace process.

Gerald Howarth: Will Her Majesty’s Government be supporting the resumption of World Bank loans to Argentina? If so, would it not be bizarre for the UK to underwrite loans to Argentina, which is awash with its own cash, and which is in the
	process of acquiring 24 advanced combat aircraft for its defence portfolio, which could present a risk to the Falkland Islands?

Hugo Swire: I am not sure that my hon. Friend has uttered a single word with which I would disagree.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Further to the earlier answer on Colombia, the Minister will be aware that paramilitaries continue to target members of the peace movement. In the past three years, 60 members of the Patriotic March have been assassinated. Will he take steps to put pressure on the Colombian Government to protect peace activists in Colombia?

Hugo Swire: Yes, we will do that, and already do so. When I was in Bogota, I met a lot of peace defenders and human rights activists, and a lot of Government officials. We continue to be extremely concerned about the situation, but I repeat what I have said: we are very keen to help to move forward the FARC peace negotiations, which will bring peace to the whole country. However, serious institutional issues in the country will then need to be addressed. The UK Government will provide every assistance we can in that respect.

Henry Smith: Marlborough house is one of the great meeting places of the Commonwealth and yet, reportedly, the Labour party says that it wants to sell it. What is the Government’s view?

Hugo Swire: I read that report with some incredulity. The Government are trying to put the “C” back into FCO, but it seems that the Labour Opposition are trying to put Marlborough house back on the market. That is the difference between us. We can accuse the Labour Government of many things, but we can never accuse them of being helpful to, supportive of or keen on the Commonwealth.

Ann Clwyd: With reference to the forthcoming ministerial visit to Malaysia, will the Minister consider its sedition laws? They are constantly being used to gag the opposition, including important opposition leaders such as Anwar Ibrahim. We left those laws behind. Why do we not get rid of them?

Hugo Swire: I will be brief because I have already addressed this issue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is meeting the Malaysian Foreign Minister next week, I believe. He will raise that issue, as we always do. We are studying the implications of the Malaysian Prime Minister’s comments and will respond in due course.

Nadhim Zahawi: Will the UK Government be represented at the forthcoming Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons?

Philip Hammond: We have decided to accept Austria’s invitation to attend the Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons on 8 and 9 December. We will be represented by Mrs Susan le Jeune, the UK ambassador to Austria and permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Andy Slaughter: May I raise again the case of my constituent Ghoncheh Ghavami, who is still facing prison in Iran and is forbidden from leaving that country? I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for meeting Ghoncheh’s family with me, but I found the Foreign Secretary’s view, that there is little he can do because Iran does not recognise dual citizenship, somewhat unhelpful. Ghoncheh is a British citizen and is entitled to the support of the Foreign Office. May I ask the Foreign Secretary again what he is doing to ensure that she can come back to her home in Shepherds Bush?

Philip Hammond: I was not intending to be unhelpful; I was simply pointing out one of the realities we have to deal with. She is a British citizen and we make representations on her behalf. One of the by-products of the nuclear talks with Iran is that we have far more contact with Iranian counterparts than we might otherwise have done. I take every opportunity to raise this with Minister Zarif, my opposite number, and will do so again when I see him at the Afghanistan conference in London this week. Iran’s position is that it does not recognise her British citizenship and will therefore not engage with us on this issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we must now move on.

Points of Order

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since written answers began to be answered online, Hansard no longer publishes written questions and answers. I find this a deprivation because it has been long my practice to study the written questions and answers published in Hansard. I find it a deprivation for our constituents who no longer have the opportunity of seeing the written questions and answers. It means that Hansard is no longer a complete record of the proceedings of this House. I am therefore asking you, Mr Speaker, to give instructions that in future written questions and answers should be published in Hansard.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My response is as follows. First, my distinct recollection is that the House has already decided on this matter. There is a reassuring nod of the head from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, which suggests that my recollection is correct. I am not sure, therefore, that that can easily be revisited, and certainly not impromptu by me from the Chair.
	However, my second point to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he wishes to obtain a hard copy of the questions and answers, in accordance with his usual practice, he can obtain that from the Vote Office. That facility, although of course it could be extended to the right hon. Gentleman alone on grounds of his seniority and distinction, is in fact also an opportunity afforded to other right hon. and hon. Members.
	I accept that these are matters of interpretation and opinion, but my last point would be that as far as the public is concerned I think the material is readily accessible and, arguably, as a result of this approach more accessible.
	Now, to judge by the rather sceptical expression on the right hon. Gentleman’s face, I fear I may have some way to go before persuading him of the merit of our approach. But what I am seeking to do—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Somebody chunters, slightly irreverently, from a sedentary position, “analogue”. In many respects, the right hon. Gentleman is modernity itself, not least in his original approach to sartorial elegance, but on these matters he does tend to be rather trad. I am trying, in a utilitarian spirit, on a Benthamite basis, to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and I hope that we can do that. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, I have a feeling that he will be beating a path to my door.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance. A young girl from my constituency has been tragically murdered in Cologne. There is no police investigation, although there is every evidence that her drink was spiked—she was poisoned. There has been no police investigation and no help for the family. There is not another Foreign Office Question Time for another month. Can you advise me on how I can raise this issue in the House?

Mr Speaker: The answer is twofold. First, the hon. Gentleman can write to a Foreign Office Minister, and he can be as confident of as speedy a reply these days, not least on the grounds of his seniority and persistence, as can his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, he has effectively raised his point, through the ruse of the use and—some would say—the rather gentle abuse of the point of order procedure. Foreign Office Ministers will have heard his utterance, and let it never be said that he and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton are not heard in this House; I think we will all agree they are heard with appropriate regularity.

Overseas Voters (15 Year Rule)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow British citizens resident overseas for more than 15 years to vote in UK Parliamentary elections and referendums; and for connected purposes.
	It is estimated that there are 5.5 million UK citizens living abroad, of whom possibly 1 million are under 18 and a further 1 million are debarred by the 15-year rule and who maintain strong cultural, emotional, financial and historical links with this country. However, under current laws, British citizens who live abroad can only vote in UK parliamentary elections for a maximum of 15 years from the date they last lived in the UK. I believe this to be incredibly unfair and unjustified, given that many people who have lived abroad for more than 15 years decided to move to a different country only after having paid into this country’s system for the whole of their working lives, and still have strong connections to the UK. Why should they, after all that, be disfranchised by their country of origin?
	The 15-year limit we impose on voters is one of the strictest in the world. Indeed, from my research, the only countries with stricter rules on overseas voting are Ireland, Greece and Malta, where citizens who have left their country are not allowed to vote at all. However, countries as diverse as the US, France, Japan, South Africa, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Italy all have no limit on the ability of their citizens to vote from abroad. We must surely question why, as a country with a proud history of democracy and a wide franchise, we set some of the strictest rules in the world against our own citizens.
	Much of the opposition to abolishing the 15-year rule is centred around the fact that relatively few of the 3.5 million citizens living overseas and currently eligible to register to vote actually do so. Only about 32,000 overseas citizens are registered, which is disappointingly few. I have been pressing the Electoral Commission for some time dramatically to step up its efforts to increase the number of eligible overseas voters, and I am pleased it has now accepted a target of 100,000 voters to be registered by May 2015—before the general election.
	There are some possible reasons why overseas citizens do not register to vote. It might be that many are simply not aware of it, so we should do more, through passports, pensions and Government Departments, to make them aware of their rights. Until recently, it has been a long, drawn-out process, involving paper forms having to be sent across the world simply to register, but under changes made by this Government, I am pleased to say we have now made progress, and people living abroad can now register to vote online in just a few minutes at www.gov.uk/register-to-vote. A further deterrent was the time it took to return postal votes from around the world, but again the Government have recently introduced changes to the individual voter registration system increasing the period for returning postal votes from 17 to 25 days, which will be of considerable advantage to people living around the world.
	Despite the low registration figures, however, we should not simply discount such a large number of British citizens and take away their right to vote. If that many people living in this country were disfranchised, there would be an outcry. I strongly believe that one reason registration numbers are so long is the deterrent effect of the 15-year rule. I have had people contacting me from all around the world, saying “What is the point in registering to vote now, when I will lose my vote after 15 years?” It is not that they do not want to vote, but that they do not want to have to register and then lose that right.
	Contrary to the assertion by some that people living abroad do not care about participating in UK elections, people actually feel very passionately about it. I have had people contacting me from across the world, thanking me for raising this issue today. They want to vote; they want to engage and take part, but they are prevented from doing so by this 15-year rule. I strongly believe that the rule acts as a real disincentive for people to register and vote.
	Throughout history, it has been the Conservative party that has championed the rights of overseas voters. Only under a Conservative Government have the rights of overseas voters been extended. Labour and Liberal Democrats have consistently tried to limit the voting rights of our citizens around the world. Indeed, in 1998, when there was a Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the issue, Labour and Liberal Democrat members urged that the length of time should be reduced—despite the Home Office saying that the vast amount of correspondence received on the subject was in favour of an extension of the limits.
	The extent to which the Opposition parties have denied the right of overseas voters was clearly demonstrated here earlier in the year when I and a number of my hon. Friends tabled amendments to the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 to abolish the 15-year rule. However, these efforts were thwarted by a combination of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, and the same thing happened in the other place when the noble Lord Lexden tabled the same amendments.
	It is absolutely right that citizens living abroad should be able to participate in our democratic process. After all, more often than not, they are the people who have worked hard through their working lives and contributed to the system through taxes and national insurance, and they usually keep their UK bank accounts. They should therefore have the right to maintain a say in how that money is spent. Indeed, decisions of the UK Government continue to have effects on overseas citizens once they have left our shores.
	Many hon. and right hon. Members will have received correspondence regarding overseas pensions. This is a classic example of an issue that continues to affect citizens after they have moved away from this country. They should be able to raise these issues with their votes, just as citizens living within the country are able to do. I would urge all those who feel strongly about this or any other issue to register for an overseas vote. If they do so in significant numbers, their voice will be heard.
	It is clear from my conversations through our Conservatives Abroad network around the world that many people living abroad often pay closer attention to British politics and current affairs than many who live
	here. They are absolutely passionate about this country; they diligently read the British press and listen to our media; they often have families and friends in the UK whom they visit. As true democrats in this mother of Parliaments, we should encourage and facilitate all the millions of overseas voters to register, and we should abolish this 15-year rule. This would send a strong signal to those people that we are enormously grateful that they are the unofficial ambassadors, trade envoys and representatives for our country around the world. This is why I am pleased that the abolition of the 15-year rule is now official Conservative party policy, and will feature in our manifesto ahead of the general election in 2015. It has always been our party that has recognised the rights of overseas voters and understood their desire to remain linked to this country.
	Today’s Bill is an important part of a long-running campaign by some very determined people for the unfettered right of all British citizens living abroad to have the vote—the universal franchise. Up until now, only the Conservative party has campaigned on this issue. Today, however, I issue a challenge to all other parties to join me in this campaign, to make this a cross-party issue and to ensure that it duly happens.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Miss Chloe Smith, Sir Roger Gale, Glyn Davies, Henry Smith, Mr Nigel Evans, Sir Peter Bottomley, Sarah Newton, Alistair Burt, Mr Dominic Grieve and Dr Liam Fox present the Bill.
	Geoffrey Clifton-Brown accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015, and to be printed (Bill 129).

Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee to move his motion, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers to wind up the debate. The thrust of the debate is in the ownership of the House, and I think that we shall want to hear from Back-Bench Members, led by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Richard Ottaway.

Richard Ottaway: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the ban by China on the Foreign Affairs Committee visit to Hong Kong.
	As one who travels more than most, I have become only too aware of the high regard that the world has for the United Kingdom—for what this iconic building stands for, what the Chamber stands for, and what those who sit in it stand for. It is, in a phrase, freedom and democracy: a respect for human rights around the world, and an abhorrence of tyranny. The decision by the Government of China to ban the Foreign Affairs Committee’s visit to Hong Kong is a mistake. It is an attack on the men and women of the free world.
	It is nearly five years since the House did me the great honour of electing me Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. During that time, I have been ably supported by my colleagues. We have visited some of the most troubled parts of the world—places where democracy is all but non-existent, or an illusion—but in none has anyone ever sought to deny us access, or accused us of
	“meddling in the internal affairs of another country”,
	as the Chinese ambassador did during a meeting with me on 15 August. That is an accusation unsupported by any evidence.
	Between the end of the first opium war with China in 1842 and withdrawal in 1997, the Union flag flew over the island of Hong Kong. In 1898, the Chinese authorities granted a 99-year lease of the new territories on the mainland. The looming expiration of that lease began to exercise diplomats in the 1970s and 1980s. The Chinese made it clear that they wanted the return of the new territories, without which Hong Kong was not a viable entity. A course of action and a handover were carefully planned, and the Sino-British joint declaration was agreed. The declaration was signed in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on 19 December 1984 by Margaret Thatcher and the Chinese premier, Zhao Ziyang. It was deposited with the United Nations a few months later.
	I am afraid to say that I am old enough to have been a member of the House of Commons at the time of the signing. The reaction then was that this was not a bad deal at all. It was as good as we were going to get, and it was either this or no deal at all. At its heart was a commitment to a “one country, two system” style of government, and a pledge that the socialist system of China would not be practised in Hong Kong, that Hong Kong would retain its status as an international finance centre, and that its previous capitalist system, its rights, its freedoms and its way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years. The joint declaration provides
	that those undertakings shall be set out in the Hong Kong Basic Law, and—critically—stipulates that the Chief Executive may be elected. Article 45 of the Basic Law states:
	“The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”
	The flashpoint for the current protests in Hong Kong was the publication in August of a decision by the standing committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing on procedures for the election of the Chief Executive in 2017. Aware of the forthcoming decision, two key pro-democracy campaigners, Anson Chan and Martin Lee, told our Committee in July that their main concern was that the “broadly representative nominating committee”, which approves candidates for the post of Chief Executive, would be “dominated” by Beijing loyalists. Martin Lee said that anyone who was not trusted by Beijing would be
	“screened out ...even though they were trusted by the Hong Kong people”.
	That is the problem that has given rise to unrest, and to the peaceful protests that have received global attention.
	Let me clarify for the record, and for those who are not familiar with the workings of the British constitution and the House, that a Select Committee is not part of the United Kingdom Government. On the contrary, the job of the Foreign Affairs Committee is to exercise oversight of the Foreign Office and its policies, and we operate totally independently.
	Since the handover in 1997, the Foreign Office has published a report to Parliament on Hong Kong every six months. In its report of 12 July this year, it said of the growing constitutional arguments:
	“the important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and feel that they have a real stake in the outcome.”
	It continued:
	“But it is clear that there is still some way to go for consensus to be reached.”
	Given the hundreds of thousands of protesters who were on the streets, that was a wonderful British understatement by the then Foreign Secretary, who I am pleased to see is in the Chamber today.
	In response to growing concern here and abroad, the Foreign Affairs Committee decided to conduct an inquiry into the strength, accuracy and veracity of the Foreign Office reports. Our terms of reference are simple: to investigate not just the six- monthly reports and the political and constitutional issues that are raised, but the bilateral relationship in terms of trade, business and culture, and the work of the British Council. The most important point is that we embarked upon our report with an open mind. We have no preconceived conclusions, and we invited all interested parties to give evidence, including the Hong Kong and Chinese Governments.
	However, shortly after we announced our inquiry, the Chinese ambassador to London wrote to me on 14 July stating that
	“The affairs of Hong Kong SAR”—
	Special Administrative Region—
	“are purely China's internal affairs”,
	and that he was
	“firmly opposed to any interference in Hong Kong…by any foreign country and by any means.”
	He concluded with the advice that the Committee should not make its planned visit to Hong Kong in December. We rejected that advice, because we believed that it would be an abrogation of our responsibilities to the House if we accepted it.
	In a letter to me dated 22 November, Mr. Song Zhe, China's commissioner to Hong Kong—that is, its representative in Hong Kong—went further, saying that our visit would be viewed as
	“support to ‘Occupy Central’ and other illegal activities”.
	Occupy Central is the name of the protesters’ campaign on the streets of Hong Kong. In response to the letter, the Committee simply stated it was still our intention to visit. As a result, the deputy ambassador to the Chinese Embassy came to see me in the House on Friday afternoon, and informed me that the Committee would not be allowed entry into Hong Kong for the purposes of our inquiry. The meeting took place in a Committee Room on the Upper Committee Corridor. Fortunately, for the purpose of greater accuracy, I invited the editor of Hansard to attend to ensure that there would be a verbatim record of the conversation. I am grateful to her for her efforts.
	At the heart of the Chinese argument, conveyed to me at the meeting, is that the joint declaration signed by China and the United Kingdom is now void and only covered the period from the signing in 1984 until the handover in 1997. Given that the Chinese Government gave an undertaking that the policies enshrined in the agreement would remain unchanged for 50 years, this is a manifestly irresponsible and incorrect position to take. It is a live agreement, which is why the Foreign Office rightly continues to produce its six-monthly reports on Hong Kong. Britain is a party to over 18,000 international treaties and agreements. To suggest that we have no right to assess the performance of our counter-parties to such agreements is ridiculous.
	The second point made is the old Aunt Sally—which was made not once, but twice—that we are not a colonial power any more and must not behave like one. I only mention this to enable the House to assess the mindset inside the Chinese Government.
	I believe that the decision to ban the Committee is wrong and will have a profound impact. First, decisions on entry to Hong Kong are devolved under the Basic Law and are clearly a matter for the Hong Kong Administration, not the Chinese Government. This sends a clear signal that the pledge that Hong Kong would
	“enjoy a high degree of autonomy”,
	as set out in paragraph 3(2) of the joint agreement, is now under threat. That the ban on the Committee clearly came from the Chinese Government brings into question whether the key principle of “one country, two systems” still has any meaning.
	Secondly, we are China’s partners, not a distant third party. This decision will do nothing but damage Anglo-Chinese relations, something I regret. China is a fellow member of the G20. We have a free flow of parliamentarians, officials, businessmen and those involved in cultural exchanges. I say to China, “If you want to be a member of the G20, you have to behave like a member of the G20.” We have Chinese delegations here all the time. It should not be a one-way street. The Minister of
	State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), is, in fact, due to visit Hong Kong in a few weeks’ time; are they going to ban him, too?

Keith Vaz: I fully support what the right hon. Gentleman has said today. He has put his case in a very measured and eloquent way and I am sure the whole House supports the position taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee, which of course has implications for other Select Committees, should they wish to visit other countries.
	Of course, Select Committees are separate from the Government, but were any representations made by the Government to the Chinese Government about the refusal to grant a visa and allow the FAC to go to China?

Richard Ottaway: As a fellow Select Committee Chairman, I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support and he will fully understand the position the Committee finds itself in. If he does not mind, I will leave it to the Minister to answer his question, perhaps when he winds up, but I would say that the Foreign Office has been nothing but supportive of the Committee throughout this unhappy episode.
	Thirdly, and most importantly, this decision points to China’s direction of travel. If there is a commitment to democracy in Hong Kong, one first has to understand democracy. Democracy embraces criticism, and constructive criticism is the most valuable thing democracy can provide. If China blatantly blocks well-wishers like this Parliament, that raises big, unanswered questions which will alarm the people of Hong Kong and the region. This decision will not go unnoticed in Taiwan.

Nadhim Zahawi: May I say that it is a pleasure to serve on the FAC under my right hon. Friend’s chairmanship? Does he agree that the Chinese Government have already concluded that they know what our report will say, which is unwise, and they have forfeited the opportunity to put their case to the Committee?

Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I value his support on the Committee. We have approached this inquiry with an open mind, and I think the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong authorities are missing a real opportunity by declining to give evidence to us. Indeed they do not even recognise the Committee as they continue to call this a “so-called inquiry.”
	Finally, Hong Kong is the largest stock market in China and its main financial services hub, supporting a fifth of the world’s population. It currently has free flows of money, goods and services. What sort of message does this send to future investors? This arbitrary action can only harm China’s reputation and financial interests in an increasingly global world. In Asia, a stable Singapore looks a much better place to do business at the moment.

Robert Flello: I have been listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, which I think is absolutely spot-on. Does he agree that the Chinese are looking at this in the
	following way: “Well, there was all that fuss about Tibet and we just got on with it, and there was all that fuss about our appalling human rights record but we have just got on with it. So over time, this too, will all go away and we’ll continue to trade and be able to sell our goods around the world and nobody will take a blind bit of notice”?

Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. After the spat over the Dalai Lama, Anglo-Chinese relations were on the right trajectory, and I think this is a very serious hiccup now, which will give a lot of people reason to pause and reflect.
	We will continue with our inquiry, but this decision cannot go unchallenged. As Members of this House are well aware, as we enter this Chamber we pass under the archway which has been deliberately left with the damage inflicted by a bomb in the second world war. It is a reminder of the damage that can ultimately be caused by the enemies of freedom. The anchor in our world today is freedom. It gives us our sense of direction. It is how we decide between right and wrong. I invite the Government to condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.

Ann Clwyd: I hope that China will, even at this late stage, change its mind. I say that because 26 years ago, as a Member of this House, I went with a delegation to Hong Kong. We stayed there for a week, and then at the end of the week we booked through a tourist organisation a visit to mainland China. We got as far as Macau and got on a tourist bus ready to cross the border into China, but at the border three of us—three British MPs—were asked to get off the bus. We questioned at the time why we were asked to get off the bus when we had tickets for a three-day visit to China. The tour operator said he could not answer the question, but we were welcome to stay at their expense in Macau for the weekend. That, of course, was not the idea. It was not until we got back to London and I visited the Chinese ambassador that I was told what the reason was: it was that one of our MP members had “journalist” written in his passport. Because it was 26 years ago and around the time of Tiananmen square, the ambassador said they were afraid that if they let us into China we would create some bother. However, he then apologised and said it had all been a bad mistake, and offered us a visit to China at the expense of the Chinese Government, which we took him up on, and there followed a very interesting visit to China. I hope that, if the Chinese Government are listening to these speeches, there is still time for them to admit they have made a mistake and that we should be allowed in.
	I support the views of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), who has eloquently presented the case.
	While I have the opportunity, I want to talk about freedom of the press. The Chairman talked about the importance of freedom of speech and of the press. Under article 27 of the Basic Law, residents of Hong Kong
	“shall have freedom of speech, of the press and publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and demonstration”,
	and the right to join trade unions and to strike.
	In recent years, however, there has been an increasing number of complaints from Hong Kong that the freedom of the press, in particular, is being undermined in a number of different ways. For instance, this year, Hong Kong fell to a record low of 61st in the annual global ranking for press freedom complied by Reporters Without Borders. The 2014 annual report of the Hong Kong Journalists’ Association, entitled “Press Freedom Under Siege”, calls 2014
	“the darkest year for press freedom for several decades, with the media coming under relentless assault from several directions.”
	The report also argued that the suppression of press freedom was happening
	“despite the existence of protection by law.”
	Violence against journalists has also increased in Hong Kong as part of the growing intimidation of journalists. The most recent such incident was a knife attack carried out on 26 February against Kevin Lau, the former editor-in-chief of the popular daily, Ming Pao, which was often critical of Beijing. Mr Lau had been abruptly fired a month beforehand by the paper’s owner, a tycoon with major investments in China, and replaced by a new editor who was widely seen as more pro-Chinese. The attack drew widespread condemnation, including from the Hong Kong Government.
	Attacks have also been carried out this year against senior figures in the Hong Kong Morning News Media Group and, in 2013, against the owner of the free newspaper am730, the publisher of iSun Affairs and the Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai. All the victims were connected with media outlets known for expressing critical views of Beijing.
	Aside from the attacks, many of which have not been solved, other complaints about press freedom centre on issues such as self-censorship and personnel changes. Such complaints do not generally allege that the legal right to press freedom in Hong Kong is being challenged, but rather that journalists or media outlets that are known to criticise Beijing are increasingly facing problems such as the withdrawal of advertisers, the abrupt and unexplained sacking of outspoken management or editorial staff, and the denial of applications to renew broadcasting licences.

David Winnick: I am listening with great attention to my right hon. Friend’s speech, and we all deplore the events that she has described. Would it not, however, be naive to believe that a China controlled by the Communist party and determined to maintain its dictatorship is going to allow freedom of expression and the democratic rights in Hong Kong that we all wish to see?

Ann Clwyd: The point that I was making earlier was that those rights are enshrined in law, and that the Chinese Government are therefore breaking the law if those rights are being violated.
	These issues are creating a climate in which, although press freedom is respected according to the letter of the law, journalists are either being pressurised by advertisers and media owners to avoid criticising Beijing or being denied a platform from which to make such criticisms. The rise of the Chinese-owned media in Hong Kong, in tandem with China’s more general economic growth,
	also plays a role in debates over press freedom. Reporters Without Borders drew attention in its annual report to this fact, stating:
	“China’s growing economic weight is allowing it to extend its influence over the media in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, which had largely been spared political censorship until recently. Media independence is now in jeopardy in these three territories, which are either ‘special administrative regions’ or claimed by Beijing.”
	I would describe the situation for press and broadcasting freedom in Hong Kong as dire.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s six-monthly report on Hong Kong covering July to December 2013 included a section on press freedom and freedom of expression. It noted that there were “some concerns” that these freedoms were “under threat”. I think that is rather too mild. The report concluded that those rights were “generally well respected”, but detailed a number of controversies particularly relating to press freedom. It its six-monthly report covering January to June 2014, the FCO listed several similar incidents of controversy or demonstrations relating to concerns in Hong Kong about perceived infringements of press freedom. It noted that people in Hong Kong appeared to be increasingly worried about self-censorship. It also noted, however, that in April, the chief executive had spoken in support of press freedom because it was
	“a cornerstone of a free society”.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not take a particular stand on the specific concerns it mentioned, stating:
	“We believe that freedom of expression, including of the press, has played an important role in Hong Kong’s success. It is one of the fundamental freedoms protected by the Joint Declaration. As such, we take seriously concerns about press freedom, including fears about self-censorship. We welcome the Chief Executive’s clear statements on press freedom and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.”
	As the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, our investigation is going to continue. I hope that the Chinese Government are listening to the points that are being made in this debate and that they will think again, as they did 26 years ago when they recognised that they had made a mistake by excluding three of us from China at that time.

Malcolm Rifkind: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Central to the concern that the House is expressing is the question of whether the United Kingdom can reasonably be accused of interfering in the internal affairs of China. I was privileged to serve as Foreign Secretary for the final two years of British sovereignty over Hong Kong and I was personally involved in the final stages of the negotiations. If the Committee had been trying to comment on matters that were irrelevant to either the joint declaration or the Basic Law, there could be a legitimate complaint that those were the internal affairs of China. However, the question of the franchise in Hong Kong goes to the very heart of the joint declaration and the Basic Law.
	The Chairman of the Committee was entirely correct to say that it is patently absurd to suggest that the right—in fact, the obligation—of the United Kingdom
	Government to take an interest in the fulfilment of the commitments expired when sovereignty transferred to Hong Kong. Only 17 years have passed in the 50-year commitment by the Chinese Government to fulfil those obligations. That commitment was part of an international agreement reached with Her Majesty’s Government, and it is an obligation, not just an entitlement, for the British Government and the Committees of this House to monitor these matters and to express their views on them.
	I genuinely believe that the Chinese Government have done themselves a disservice by taking this step. They have demonstrated not their strength but their weakness. The idea that vetoing the issue of visas would resolve the issue was simply wrong. I understand that the Committee is, quite rightly, going to continue its work, and all that has happened is that this action has created some very adverse publicity for the Chinese Government, which could easily have been avoided. They should have welcomed the Foreign Affairs Committee and used the visit as an opportunity to put forward their point of view. They could have explained that, under their own proposals, there would be a mass franchise. They could also have explained the justification for their belief that the selection of candidates should be under their control.
	As to whether the Chinese Government would have persuaded the Committee, we cannot say one way or the other, but that is how they should have operated. They have done themselves a disservice in a much wider sense than simply the implications for Hong Kong, because part of the reason for the original commitment by Deng Xiaoping to two systems in one country was not just to find a solution to the issue of Hong Kong; infinitely more important to Chinese policy and Chinese national aspirations is whether Taiwan will one day agree to rejoin the motherland. Central to the Chinese Government’s position ever since Deng Xiaoping has been an attempt to reassure the people and the Government of Taiwan—now a democratic Government with a pluralist system and the rule of law—that their way of life would not be endangered by some agreement at some stage to peacefully join with China under the People’s Republic. The controversies that are convulsing Hong Kong at the moment do enormous damage to the credibility of the Chinese Government’s ability to put forward that argument. They should realise that, and it is astonishing that they still persist in the policy that we are debating.
	Central to these issues is not just the question of democracy in Hong Kong, but the rule of law, which is not just about the number of political parties, the candidates or free elections. We all understand what the rule of law means. A fascinating speech was made by the current leader of China and a policy was implemented by the National People’s Congress just a few weeks ago, when the Chinese Government declared that the priority objective for the immediate future was the rule of law in China—but they described it in a specific way. They said that China would be utterly committed to the rule of law “with Chinese characteristics”. That is an interesting qualification. I recall the days of the Soviet Union, when people referred to “people’s democracies” and we knew that the addition of “people’s” was in practice a negation of the democracy itself. Once people start having to qualify democracy, it is an excuse to try to
	justify ignoring it. So when China is now committed to the rule of law “with Chinese characteristics”, it is worth asking what the characteristics are.
	I have a reason to think I know what those characteristics mean and I wish to share it briefly with the House. When I was Foreign Secretary, one of my obligations was to have a series of negotiations with the then Chinese Foreign Minister, Qian Qichen, about the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic. I vividly remember one meeting in Beijing when I said to him that what was important to the people of Hong Kong when they became part of China was not simply that they would have elections, a pluralist political system and so on, important though that was, but that they would also continue to enjoy the rule of law. I knew what I meant by that, as this House would, but I have never forgotten his response, which was, “Please don’t worry, Mr Rifkind. We in China also believe in the rule of law. In China, the people must obey the law.” I had to point out to him that when we and the people of Hong Kong talked about the rule of law, we were talking not just about the people obeying the law, but about the Government obeying the law—the Government had to be acting under the law and there had to be an independent legal and judicial system. Manifestly, the then Chinese Foreign Minister not only did not agree with me, but had not the faintest idea what I was saying; he could not understand that distinction, and we see that elsewhere; we see it in Putin’s Russia at the moment. The view is that Governments make laws and therefore, if they do not like them, they can either ignore them or change them with impunity, and that is a very serious matter.
	It is now 17 years since the transition. I think we have to acknowledge that in many fundamental respects Hong Kong remains very different from China. Compared with the rest of the People’s Republic, it is an open and relatively free society, and we should commend the Chinese Government for the extent to which they have carried out not only much of the letter of the commitment, but a significant amount of its spirit. If they had not done so, Hong Kong would not be the open society that it still remains today. But this House, like the world as a whole, is conscious that these distinctions are being eroded, and in the short term the situation is rather grim if the Chinese Government are determined to nibble away wherever they can at the freedoms that the people of Hong Kong enjoy and are entitled to continue to enjoy.
	In the medium to longer term, the difference between Hong Kong and the rest of China will erode, but not in the direction that the current Chinese Government would like; it will not be by Hong Kong becoming more like China, but in the longer term by China becoming more like Hong Kong. Already the pressures within China for a more open and more pluralist system, and for some choice in the election of its leaders, are becoming very significant. To be fair, the Chinese Government have already experimented in some local elections with allowing more than one candidate and a real element of choice, albeit in a very restricted way.
	The final point I make is simply that the Chinese Government’s current assumption about pluralism, democracy and the rule of law is that they are western values, not Chinese ones. The evidence that discounts that, showing it to be worthless as an argument, is not what happens in the west; it is found by looking at the transformation of Taiwan, at Hong Kong and, to a
	significant degree, at Singapore—all Chinese communities that not only talk about democracy, but practise it. They practise pluralism and have independent judicial systems, and that clearly corresponds to the wishes of the people they govern. So we are talking about universal values, and the Chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have done a great service, not just to this House, but to Hong Kong and to China as a whole, by opening up this debate in the way that we are able to do today.

Gerald Kaufman: I hope the House will forgive me if I do not remain throughout this debate, as I have other commitments, although I very much wanted to be present for this debate.
	I was in Hong Kong at the handover from the United Kingdom to the Chinese Government. I remember that Prince Charles gave a party aboard the royal yacht Britannia, but there was nothing to celebrate. I was there in an auditorium when Chinese troops goose-stepped along the stage, hauled down the Union flag and hoisted the Chinese flag, and I regarded it as a day of shame for Britain. There was never any obligation to hand over Hong Kong to China. Chris Patten, when he was governor of Hong Kong, belatedly tried to stop it, but by then it was too late because the then Government had decided that that was what should be done. I have no doubt that it was Foreign Office officials abiding by their usual custom of ingratiating themselves with a Foreign Government with whom we could have valuable trading relations, with democracy as the second consideration.

Alok Sharma: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about trade. China is looking to deploy enormous amounts of capital in Europe and, clearly, a lot of investment is taking place in the UK, which I welcome. What more could be done to impress upon the Chinese Government that these incidents ultimately hit business confidence and that they need to get over this because we want to see more investment from China in Europe?

Gerald Kaufman: The problem is that the Foreign Office and other Departments such as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills say, “In the end, human rights in China and in Hong Kong are secondary to the fact that China is now an immense economic power and a very important trading partner.” The problem is that the days when morality dictated foreign policy have diminished, and it is very important for us to understand what is going on there. I remember making a great mistake when I led a Labour party delegation to China as shadow Foreign Secretary. I said to the leaders of the Chinese Communist party that if they wanted China to be a capitalist country, which they clearly did, they would have to abandon autocracy and adopt democracy. I could not have been more wrong, because they have managed to create a capitalist economy without putting in place a democratic society.
	This is a very important moment in our relationship with Hong Kong. I pay tribute to many of the things that were said at Foreign Office questions today, but the Government must take into account the fact that although trade and jobs are important, morality is also very important and we should stand up for it.
	I have a painting in my house of the gate to Tiananmen square. When we look at what has happened in China, we should be more realistic about the situation. Okay, if we want to be brutal and say that trade matters more than anything else, we should understand that that is a point of view and a policy. But let us take into account the fact that China still has the death penalty, which it uses whenever it feels so inclined. It tortures and imprisons without trial—I saw a programme on television about an artist who was imprisoned for producing the wrong paintings. There is no genuine freedom of speech, and the state interferes with the social media whenever it feels so inclined. I am not saying that we can transform all of that; of course we cannot. I am just outlining what is happening.
	The day may come when China, like the Soviet powers, suddenly becomes a democracy. I hope that I will live to see it. But at this moment, it is very, very important for this House to register its anger at what has taken place and at the insult to the Foreign Affairs Committee and therefore to this House of Commons. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling on me to speak, because I did not wish this incident to go by without stating my experience and my view.

John Stanley: I am glad to follow the excellent opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I have been a member since 1992.
	When you, Mr Speaker, gave your most welcome consent to this debate yesterday, you were entirely correct in stating that the situation we face is entirely unprecedented. The Foreign Affairs Committee, during the long period in which I have been privileged to serve on it, has never before been refused entry to any country in the world. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee has already pointed out, this is a dangerous precedent for other Committees in the House and for the House as a whole.
	In a previous visit to China in the last Parliament, we were subject to threats and a degree of intimidation, as the authorities tried to deter us from going to Tibet. I was privileged to lead the group that eventually went to Tibet, and we faced down those threats and attempts to intimidate us. At the end of the visit, we faced further intimidation and threats from the Chinese authorities when they found out that we were going from mainland China to Taiwan. That difficult situation was admirably handled by the then Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). Again, we faced down the Chinese authorities and went to Taiwan as planned.
	I am sure that all parts of the House would regard this unprecedented situation as wholly unacceptable. What the Chinese are seeking to achieve by barring the FAC from Hong Kong escapes me. As the Chairman of the Committee made it clear, we will not be deflected from our inquiry. We shall continue to take evidence for our inquiry, including from people in Hong Kong—we are capable of doing that without actually going to Hong Kong—and we shall make our report to the House in due course.
	In political terms, the Chinese authorities have scored a spectacular own goal. They could not have given more eloquent credence to the case being made by the pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong that the joint declaration is under threat; they could not have made it clearer by the way in which they have dealt with the House of Commons’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Notwithstanding that, the issue of how the British Government respond is of key importance.
	I must say to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), and to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that I have, thus far, been very disappointed with what I have seen in the public domain from the Foreign Office in its response to the situation in which this House and the FAC have been placed. As far as I can see, all they have said is that the Chinese authorities’ response and ban on the Foreign Affairs Committee is “regrettable”. That is nothing like good enough. The House and democracy in this country have been treated with contempt. I hope that the Minister of State will give us a robust response when he ends this debate.

Mike Gapes: As always, it is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) He will recall that I, as a newly elected Member of this House, joined him on the Foreign Affairs Committee in 1992. In my time as a member of the FAC, I made many visits to many different countries. We might have had some issues about who we were able to meet and the exact timings of visits, but we were never told—not even by Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan or China—that we were not welcome to come and that the authorities would stop them getting off aircraft. It is not, as some Members have said, a matter of visas; UK citizens do not need visas to go to Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government determine their own internal arrangements, yet the people in Beijing and their diplomatic representatives in London have told us that we are not welcome in Hong Kong, which is, as the Chair of the Committee so ably put it, a breach of the undertakings given by the Chinese to the people of Hong Kong and to our representatives in the negotiations that led to the joint declaration.
	Members have asked why China is doing this. I suspect—and this really surprises me—that they are afraid that the presence of a handful of British parliamentarians is somehow going to change the internal dynamics in Hong Kong and China. They must be very nervous and worried. What is happening in Hong Kong is not being broadcast in the Chinese media. We can see it covered in the rest of the world and we can see it in Taiwan, but the Chinese authorities have rigorously censored communications about events in Hong Kong. That also happens when the people of Hong Kong protest on the anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen square—not a word of it is broadcast by the Chinese state authorities. This is an indication that the Chinese regime is prepared to use a ruthless power because it is afraid. That augurs badly for what might happen in Hong Kong in the coming weeks and months.
	I do not want to spend too long talking about that, but I did want to talk about the issues about Parliament and the Committee’s inquiry. Let me go back to the previous time we visited China. In May 2006, the previous Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which I had the great honour of chairing, went to Hong Kong and from there to Beijing. The group then split into two. One went to Tibet, to Lhasa, and the other, which I led, went to Shanghai. We then met up again in Hong Kong and went to Taiwan. One of the interesting episodes, to which the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling just referred, was the meeting we had with Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing. He was very pleasant to begin with and asked me how my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), the then Foreign Secretary, was doing as he had had amicable discussions with her in the United Nations Security Council meetings. After 10 minutes, he switched completely to tell us, “I understand that you intend to go to our 19th province”—that is, Taiwan. “We have no objection to your going, but only after the reunification of our country.”
	He then said, “You are all diplomats.” We said, “No, we are parliamentarians. You don’t understand. We are not here representing the British Government but doing an inquiry and our presence and visit will not in any way change the British Government’s policy. We are doing this because we need to investigate Taiwan and its relationship with China.” He said, “If you do this, there will be serious consequences.” We wondered what those serious consequences were. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, the visit continued and we went to Tibet and to Shanghai, went back to Hong Kong and then to Taiwan. There were no serious consequences for the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	Later on in the previous Parliament, when the Committee was considering human rights issues globally, we decided as a Committee to receive the Dalai Lama for a public evidence session, which I chaired. At that point, I received a very long and vitriolic letter from the National People’s Congress in Beijing and a visit from the then Chinese ambassador, who subsequently became a deputy Foreign Minister, bringing lots of different materials including piles of books about the CIA’s role in Tibet and other documentation. The Chinese are obviously very sensitive, as they always have been, about issues to do with their status and the respect others have for China in the world. We can have a robust exchange about such issues, but there has never been a ban on parliamentarians from this House as a result of those differences. That tells me that there is something happening internally in China that is worrying.
	In our report after the inquiry in the previous Parliament, we commented on the situation in Hong Kong. In one of our conclusions, we recommended that
	“the Government urge the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to make significant, major steps towards representative democracy and to agree with Beijing a timetable by which direct election of the Chief Executive and LegCo by universal suffrage will be achieved.”
	I hope that that is a position to which we all, including Members on the Government and Opposition Front Benches, could agree today. It is of course a matter for the people of Hong Kong and China to make proposals using the arrangements set out in the basic law, but the
	aspiration for representative democracy and universal suffrage should apply for all people as soon as possible, including in Hong Kong.
	The Committee also commented on the internal situation in Hong Kong with civil liberties, humanitarian issues and the rule of law. Our conclusion in 2006 was that
	“despite some concerns, overall Hong Kong remains a vibrant, dynamic, open and liberal society with a generally free press and an independent judiciary, subject to the rule of law.”
	I hope that we can say the same about Hong Kong today. Obviously, our report will have to be published in due course when we have finished taking evidence, but I think that the behaviour of the Chinese authorities towards our Committee as well as other issues that have been raised with us so far in the evidence we have received prompt concern about whether those principles and values are under threat today.
	Let me conclude with a more general point, which has been mentioned in passing. Some people believe that we should turn a blind eye to this and some people believe that the economic imperative should determine everything. Those of us who have been to Taiwan, however, or to other countries around the world with significant Chinese populations, know that there is nothing inherently authoritarian, Stalinist, Leninist or Maoist in the Chinese character. What is communist about China today? Only the name of the ruling party. It has a state capitalist economic system run by an elite that holds political power through a one-party system and suppresses and controls dissent. How sustainable is that the future? I do not know. China’s economy is turning down and the rate of growth is slowing. China has a major demographic problem long term and its ability to meet the aspirations of its people, which it has done, taking hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in recent years, is not necessarily sustainable indefinitely under its current political model.
	There are clearly big questions for the rest of the world about how we deal with a growing China. People have talked about China’s rise and Martin Jacques, an author who is very well informed although I do not agree with his rose-tinted conclusions, has written a book called, “When China Rules the World”. Frankly, if China were to become the most important country in the world politically that would raise serious questions about what kind of universal values it would have and what kind of rule of law and humanitarian law there would be.
	It might be a small point for some people that a Committee of the House of Commons has been prevented from going to Hong Kong, but it raises fundamental questions.

Margot James: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the banning of the visit is symptomatic of China’s attitude to the rest of the world, particularly her near neighbours, considering the aggression over the Senkaku islands, the adventurism in the South China sea and the intransigence she has demonstrated in the Security Council?

Mike Gapes: I would be fairer to China, because it has played a positive role in some international matters, such as climate change, and certainly on international security, so I do not think that all its actions have been on the bad side. However, there are concerns about its
	attitude and, as the hon. Lady has highlighted, there are a number of territorial disputes around the coast and in east Asia, where a number of states are in contention for territories that have the potential for gas and oil exploration. I do not want to go down that track now and so will conclude by talking about democracy.
	In our 2006 report, the Committee came to an important conclusion. We were commenting on the Chinese military build-up across the Taiwan straits and the possible threat to peace and stability in east Asia. Relations between Taiwan and China have since improved significantly: there are now far more direct flights, there is massive investment, and millions of mainland Chinese tourists visit Taiwan, as I saw last new year—the hotel I was staying in was full of mainland Chinese. Nevertheless, there is still great sensitivity in China about what is happening in Taiwan. The Taiwanese people, as they have shown in recent local elections, are very committed to democracy. They throw politicians out and reject incumbent parties and Governments regularly.
	Our 2006 report—I think that this is still pertinent today—concluded:
	“the growth and development of democracy in Taiwan is of the greatest importance, both for the island itself and for the population of greater China, since it demonstrates incontrovertibly that Chinese people can develop democratic institutions and thrive under them.”
	That is also relevant to Hong Kong, which is why what is happening there matters and why our Committee is absolutely right to continue our inquiry and, in due course, produce a report. The Government will then have to respond to that report, hopefully before the next election, so that the House can have a further debate about developments in Hong Kong and China over the coming months.

Richard Graham: The House debates today in unusual, if not unprecedented, circumstances. It is a matter of deep frustration, disappointment and regret to me not only that are we here to do that, but that I am here as an individual who has played a part in the events leading up to the debate. For it is not only the Foreign Affairs Committee that has been effectively prevented from visiting Hong Kong: a week ago my visa application to join the UK-China leadership forum in Shanghai was rejected, as a result of which the entire parliamentary delegation has pulled out of the forum.
	We must ask ourselves why that has happened. The underlying answer, of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) rightly said, is that we have a serious disagreement with China over our ability to discuss and debate issues in Hong Kong. As other Members have said, it is sad that even before the Committee’s report has been drafted, let alone completed, China has concluded that it must be negative in principle because of its existence, rather than its content, which is as yet unknown.
	In the same way, I was clearly penalised for having the temerity to organise a debate on Hong Kong on 22 October. In my speech on that day, I congratulated Britain and China’s leaders in 1984 on finding
	“a formula, and later the trust, that maintained confidence within Hong Kong and by the world in Hong Kong. Thirty years on, the architects can congratulate themselves. Broadly, Hong Kong has thrived and remains special and successful.”
	I concluded my speech thus:
	“For the people of Hong Kong and we”—
	meaning all of us in Parliament—
	“have no interest, no advantage or no conceivable selfish purpose in any form of car crash with Hong Kong’s sovereign master, China. Rather, it is in all our interests, but particularly those of Britain and China in fulfilling the joint declaration, that Hong Kong continues to thrive and prosper, in a different world from that of 1984 or even 1997.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 276-81WH.]
	I do not believe that anyone in this House, or indeed anywhere, could take violent objection to the thoughts and beliefs behind that statement. However, I am afraid that there was an objection, which I received today in hard copy—it had insufficient postage and so arrived only today—from Ambassador Liu of the People’s Republic of China. He expressed severe displeasure and disappointment about a letter I had written to him some 10 days before the debate, outlining my reasons for holding it.
	I will recap the crucial part of the reason. As chair of the all-party China group, I believe that I have two main responsibilities, as outlined on our writing paper and clearly laid out on our website: first, to provide a forum for debate on all matters of bilateral interest; and secondly, to help to inform parliamentarians through regular visits to China. I believe that by holding the debate on Hong Kong I was fulfilling the first objective.
	Ambassador Liu wrote:
	‘Matters related to Hong Kong are none but China’s internal affairs, where China is firmly opposed to intervention or interference of any kind by any country or any individual, including the House of Commons’ inquiry, debate and investigation involving Hong Kong. Your insistence on having the aforementioned debate in the House of Commons has in effect meddled in such internal matters of Hong Kong and sent out a wrong signal. Such moves, exploited by the opposition in Hong Kong, will only create an impression that Britain supports unlawful activities such as ‘occupy Central’.”
	I have read out excerpts from my speech, and I do not believe that any objective reader could reach any of the conclusions reached by Ambassador Liu, least of all an impression that Britain supports unlawful activities such as those of Occupy Central, which did not feature in my speech at all.
	Ambassador Liu’s letter went on to state that I, as chair of the all-party China group,
	“charged with the responsibility and mission of advancing China-UK relations”—
	that is not strictly my mission, as I have just explained—should
	“refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Hong Kong as well as China. I urge you to do more things to promote China-UK relationship, rather than disrupt or undermine its healthy development.”
	It is true that relations between our two countries have improved considerably. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I were both part of the very successful delegation led by the Prime Minister to China a year ago, and earlier this summer we had a very successful visit by the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, to the UK. All of us here want to see positive relations between Britain and China for precisely the reasons I have outlined. We have much
	that is to our mutual benefit, much in the way of mutual challenges and much that we are doing together to make the world a better place.
	I genuinely believe that the role of diplomats is to build bridges, not barriers; to solve problems, not to create them; to help bring our two countries closer together; and to strengthen the relationships between this Parliament and the National People’s Congress in Beijing. Let me, for the record, respond to Ambassador Liu’s comment that I should
	“do more things to promote”
	the China-UK relationship. For three years, I was this country’s British trade commissioner to China, and also our consul to Macau. Later, I opened the first merchant banking group office in China and listed the first Chinese company on the London stock exchange. In 1993, I was part of the Anglo-Chinese expedition to make the first ever crossing of the Taklamakan desert. During that expedition, I should, by rights, have died from amoebic dysentery. I was saved by some unbelievably strong antibiotics that meant I could not eat for five days while walking some 25 miles a day in the heat of that hitherto uncrossed desert, so every day since the winter of 1993 has, to some extent, been an extra day in my life. When I came out of the desert—so thin that my trousers fell down when I tried to pull them up—and went straight to Shanghai to open the office of my employers, I vowed that I would dedicate a chunk of my life to doing things that would continue to help relations between Britain and China.
	Some two years later, my wife, Anthea, made me aware of what was happening in Chinese orphanages in Shanghai. She was, at the time, the person in charge of the welfare team of the Shanghai Expatriate Association. Many Members will know that, largely because of the one-child system, huge numbers of orphans, often predominantly female, were dumped on the doorsteps of orphanages and would spend the rest of their lives in an institution. This was a human tragedy. My wife’s dedication to helping two or three individual orphans led me to create a charitable company in Hong Kong called Children First and to get pledges of significant amounts of money from businesses in Hong Kong to support the creation of what would effectively become a foster care system in Shanghai.
	At that time, talks with the Shanghai municipal government fell through, largely on the issue of trust about who would have control of the money. However, the relationship with the civil affairs bureau was so strong that when a British citizen, Robert Glover, arrived in Shanghai and was introduced to the bureau by my wife, he was able to take forward our original vision and create what is now Care For Children—the first ever joint venture Sino-British charity, now joint ventured with the central Government’s civil affairs bureau. To date, it has taken between 250,000 and 300,000 orphans out of orphanages and put them in foster homes. It is a remarkable success. I pay tribute to Rob Glover, who is in London this week, and all that the charity has achieved. I am proud to have been first its adviser and later a director.
	That is one example of a personal commitment to improving things between Britain and China that I hope will show the House that far from doing things to disrupt and undermine the healthy development of the relationships between our two countries, I have consistently tried to enhance them.
	In that context, I am deeply disappointed by what happened this summer when the Foreign Affairs Committee rightly decided, owing to the events in Hong Kong and to the six-monthly update report on Hong Kong by Her Majesty’s Government, that it was time for it to write a report on the state of the relations between the UK and Hong Kong. It is very disappointing that a China that is now in every way stronger, more confident and more robust than it was 35 years ago, when first I visited, has been unable to recognise that this should be seen as a positive and encouraging development that opens doors rather than closes them, and to welcome a report that, in many ways, may turn out to be a lot more positive than it expects.
	Today’s debate is unfortunate in many ways. When my visa was rejected 10 days ago, I decided not to say anything about it because I did not want to contribute to a worsening situation. It was already, to me, a huge disappointment that a body like the UK-China leadership forum—which exists precisely to have the dialogue that two countries with different histories, cultures and systems of government and parliament must have in order to overcome their differences of opinion and views on the world at large—was having to be disrupted on the simple principle that China chooses its delegation and we choose ours.
	This debate is essentially about the freedom that this House must have to fulfil our duties and obligations to our constituents. Our constituents are interested in a strong relationship with China. Of course, business and the economy are a vital part of that, but our constituents are deeply interested in other aspects of the relationship, many of which relate to human rights and animal rights. We must raise those issues and they must be debated and discussed. The all-party group cannot and should not avoid them; it must discuss them. We must recognise that there will be differences of opinion, but they should be aired in a sensible, responsible way that recognises the cultural differences. This debate is all about the ability of our House to discuss and debate—and ultimately to enhance, not disrupt—relations between these two great countries.

Sandra Osborne: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who made a very moving and sombre speech about his experiences in China and how sad it is that China has chosen to reject his arrival. The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), gave a very full and effective explanation of what he called this unfortunate and unhappy episode—I am sure we all agree with that.
	I am pleased that we have the opportunity in this emergency debate to highlight how unacceptable the actions of the Chinese Government have been in banning the entry to Hong Kong of democratically elected representatives and hampering our ability to scrutinise our own Government’s actions, as is our role as the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is very important to emphasise, as others have, that we are totally separate from Government. I think that is sometimes misunderstood by some foreign Governments, and certainly by the Chinese Government. We do not take orders from our
	own Government, so we are certainly not going to be deterred from carrying out our duties by any foreign Government, from whatever part of the globe.
	I cannot honestly say that I am surprised about what has happened, because I was present when the Foreign Affairs Committee went to China during the last Parliament, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). It was quite an experience. I recollect that we received a friendly welcome and had meetings with many representatives of the Chinese Government. However, as my hon. Friend said, when it became clear that we intended to visit Taiwan, we were told in no uncertain terms that this would lead to “serious consequences”. My recollection of the meeting that he described is that we were more or less thrown out; “asked to leave” would be a more polite way of putting it. As he said, the serious consequences did not arise for us, but it was an illustration of the kind of overreaction we can expect from a Government who do not understand the concept of transparency and democracy, not to mention scrutiny and accountability.
	Taking the unprecedented step of refusing entry to a Select Committee takes the whole matter much further. I believe that this amounts to a diplomatic crisis. It is more than regrettable, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has publicly stated—it is totally unacceptable. I hope that the FCO will make the strongest representations on the matter and take it further with a view to seeking a change of position on the part of the Chinese Government forthwith. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about what the Government intend to do.
	We as a Committee have been working hard on this inquiry for some time and taken extensive evidence to date. However, there is no real substitute for finding the facts on the ground, as we have often found in some of the most dangerous places in the world, which often lack democracy. Under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), we have sought to conduct the inquiry in a responsible manner and as inclusively as possible, preferably with the full co-operation of the Hong Kong authorities. Of course, our concern for human rights and democracy is part of that, but our inquiry is wide ranging and we believe it is timely to look at how the Sino-British joint declaration is being implemented 30 years after it was agreed by both parties.
	Contrary to the views of the Chinese Government, Lord Patten told us that the terms of the 1984 joint declaration between the UK and China, agreeing the transfer of sovereignty to China and setting out “one country, two systems” principles of governance, explicitly gave the UK a legitimate interest in Hong Kong’s future. When China asserts that what is happening in Hong Kong is nothing to do with us, we should make it absolutely clear, publicly and privately, that that is not the case. We are not interfering in China’s internal affairs.
	Notwithstanding all that, we have the right and the remit to scrutinise the work of the FCO throughout the world, which, of course, we do. This snub by the Chinese Government and the confrontational manner with which they have conducted themselves is an insult not only to the Committee, but to the whole House. We cannot accept it, especially from a Government with whom we have friendly and mutually beneficial relations. The FCO has pointed to the visit of the Chinese premier in
	June as an example of the positive trend in UK-China relations, but it is fundamental to our democratic system that we reserve the right to criticise our friends, and that should not have come as a surprise to the Chinese Government.
	Mr Speaker, I hope you will be able to find it in your power to draw to the attention of the Chinese Government the role of Back-Bench MPs and the House’s disapproval of what has happened. If in refusing us entry to Hong Kong it was their intention to shut us up, they have achieved the exact opposite and shown to the whole world what their agenda is for Hong Kong in a way we will not be able to achieve in our report. However, we have postponed, not cancelled, our visit, so I look forward to the Committee engaging with all parties in Hong Kong in due course.

Martin Horwood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who made a typically well-informed and moving speech.
	I will start on a slightly sober note with a touch of realism. We in this Parliament are obviously not in a very strong position to influence events in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, it is absolutely right that we should support human rights and democracy for the people of Hong Kong and support the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and his Committee in stating very clearly that the accusation of unjustified meddling in the internal affairs of China is not justified. Indeed, it is not justified either to try to inhibit the work of the all-party group on China, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is being generous, both in what he says and in giving way, but I want to make a tiny point. He said that we may not have much influence over Hong Kong, but the whole point of this debate, of course, is that we are not trying to influence Hong Kong. We are trying to discuss the issues, but we are not trying to interfere, meddle, influence or anything else.

Martin Horwood: I understand my hon. Friend’s point and I will come back to it. There is an argument for us to comment on universal human rights and thereby try to influence their conduct throughout the world. To that extent, I think we are trying to influence events, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the focus of this debate is on, in a sense, the opposite situation, which is the Chinese Government’s unjustified attempt to curtail a parliamentary inquiry. It is true that we are not seeking in this debate to change anything in Hong Kong immediately.
	The accusation of unjustified interference is wrong on two counts. First, as many hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out, we are party to an international agreement—the 1984 joint declaration—which refers in article 3(12) to the
	“basic policies of the People’s Republic of China regarding Hong Kong”.
	Article 3(4) states:
	“The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People’s Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.”
	That is not the strongest wording in the world, but it is repeated in the basic law that was also implemented by the joint agreement. Article 3(12) goes on to state that those policies would
	“remain unchanged for 50 years.”
	We are clearly within that time scale, so the British Parliament has a perfectly legitimate right to look at how the basic law and joint agreement are being interpreted in practice in Hong Kong, particularly in the light of the Beijing Government’s announcements in August.
	The second reason it is wrong to criticise the Foreign Affairs Committee is that we are all party to the United Nations universal declaration of human rights, which affirms that human rights—from Iran to Colombia and from China to Britain itself—are inalienable for all members of the human family. It is legitimate for any member of the United Nations to look at, comment on and take an interest in the conduct of human rights worldwide, and no Parliament or democratic assembly anywhere in the world should feel inhibited from doing so. It is common for this Parliament to comment on human rights in a variety of countries. Indeed, the Government publish an annual human rights report, in which they comment on human rights in many countries around the world.
	As Lenin once said, what is to be done? First, we have to be clear that the Foreign Affairs Committee should continue to highlight the issues raised by events in Hong Kong, to investigate them thoroughly and to draw reasonable conclusions without fear of intimidation. We need to be clear that everyone in this Parliament supports its right to do that and encourages it to continue its inquiry.
	Secondly, it is important that the British Government continue to raise concerns about China’s interpretation of the basic law and the joint declaration, and in doing so draw on the expertise of the Foreign Affairs Committee and its eventual report.
	Thirdly, this country needs to adopt a deeper and more sophisticated policy towards China. Parliament and Government have tended to address China as if the only important thing we want it to do is buy and sell more widgets. The view has been that trade and capital investment are important, but almost to the exclusion of other considerations, and many hon. Members have reinforced the point that that is not the case. Trade and capital investment are important, but policies have to be wider and more sophisticated than that.
	Part of that policy has to be an understanding from our side of China, its sensitivities and history, and the progress it has made. That means acknowledging that our shared history with China has not been particularly glorious on the British side on many occasions. We have to acknowledge that our role as a colonial power in events such as the opium wars was, in retrospect, disgraceful. We have undervalued contributions such as that of the 96,000 members of the Chinese Labour Corps during the first world war. They behaved with complete heroism and lost thousands of their number, but they were treated pretty disgracefully at the time and, equally disgracefully, their heroism and contribution to this
	country during the first world war have been neglected. A broad-based campaign is seeking to rectify that omission and obtain a memorial in this country to the Chinese Labour Corps. I hope that will attract Government support.
	We have to acknowledge our own failure to deliver democracy in Hong Kong. We were the administrators and rulers of Hong Kong for many years, and we never delivered a chief executive who was elected by the people of Hong Kong without interference. We appointed colonial governors, and I am sure that some of them were very skilled, talented and caring, but in a sense it was a benign colonial dictatorship. It is difficult for us now to turn around and criticise China on how it behaves towards Hong Kong, and we have to be sensitive to that.

Sandra Osborne: It is important to remember that the Committee has not come to any conclusions about the rights and wrongs of the situation. We are protesting about being refused access to Hong Kong.

Martin Horwood: I completely accept that point, which the hon. Lady is right to emphasise. I am talking in a wider context about how we need a sophisticated approach to China. We should not constantly hector the Chinese for any failings we detect on their side, without acknowledging that over the long period of history—their approach is very much to look at the long picture—there have also been historical failings, injustices and omissions on our side. We have to be honest and acknowledge that.
	A sophisticated policy towards China must include firmness in the face both of contraventions of human rights on Chinese territory, and of the militarisation and the sometimes unjustified indulgence of dictatorships in different parts of the world. That firmness should include the way in which the Chinese allow the perpetuation of wildlife crime in pursuit of markets for things such as ivory, which the International Fund for Animal Welfare has highlighted in the House of Commons only this week. In our pursuit of trade and investment, there is a risk that not only the UK but democracies all over the world will find ourselves divided and perhaps to some extent ruled by a Chinese foreign policy that seeks to intimidate smaller democracies and to influence our discussion of their affairs.

Jim Shannon: It just so happens that I had an opportunity to speak to a chief superintendent from Hong Kong police this week. In our conversation, he confirmed that 6,500 demonstrations take place in Hong Kong. We are very fond of demonstrations in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows. Does he share my concern to ensure that demonstrations commemorating workers’ rights and other events should continue in the way they have until now, with no bother, actions or friction?

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which underlines the fact that it is sometimes difficult to deal with the idea of free protest. It is fine in principle, but in practice even in our own country—even in Northern Ireland—it is sometimes a difficult challenge for policy makers and the authorities. The right of free protest is enormously important.
	It has been a hard-fought and hard-won right in countries all over the world, and we should certainly try to defend it in Hong Kong.
	I was making the point that the free countries of the world risk being subject to a kind of divide-and-rule approach by the Chinese, with the Chinese Government using the rather intimidating tactics of trying to suppress inquiries and to inhibit activities, even those of all-party groups that are nothing to do with the British Government and are not part of this country’s Executive.
	Part of the relationship building has to be to try to communicate to the Chinese Government what we understand not just by the rule of law, as has been mentioned, but by the separation of powers. In democracies such as ours, the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature are completely separate, and they have their own rights against each other, let alone in relation to other countries.
	The democracies of the world must start to develop a more sophisticated approach to China, so that we can present a united front and say, “It is quite clear that you are the emerging new superpower of the world, an enormous economic force and probably a growing political force, and that you have an enormously rich and important history and a fabulous civilisation, but that does not give you the right to take smaller countries, democracies and economies and inhibit them from carrying out their proper business.”

Ian Paisley Jnr: Our links with China should be emphasised. Historically, the first ambassador to Beijing hailed from Ballymoney—his name was Macartney—but today that link between my constituency and Hong Kong continues through the Kowloon Motor Bus Company, with Wrightbus manufacturing buses not only for London but for Hong Kong. Such economic links should be used as influence, saying, “Look, we have an economic driver that brings us closer together. Let us not be separated by this division that is currently preventing Members of Parliament from entering Hong Kong.”

Martin Horwood: I am happy that the hon. Gentleman has intervened on that point, which emphasises our strong cultural and human links with Hong Kong and with China as a whole.
	Countries such as the UK must support democracies in the region, such as Taiwan. The example of Hong Kong is very important to Taiwan’s security and confidence. The language that Beijing is using about Taiwan has changed subtly in the past year or so. It is talking about the problem of Taiwan not being handed down from generation to generation, as though there ought to be some conclusion to the perpetual debate about Taiwan’s possible independence, its reintegration into the Republic of China or its continuation with its current status. That is potentially threatening to the democracy of Taiwan, as we must acknowledge. We must understand that how the one country, two systems approach has worked in Hong Kong is vital, and that that example is being watched very carefully in Taiwan.
	The underlying message of this debate must be that we have to understand and respect China, but that we equally want China to understand and respect how our democracy works, including how we separate powers between parliamentary inquiries and the Executive, and how a Select Committee’s right to look into a legitimate
	area of concern—in terms not only of British foreign policy but of universal human rights—is something that we can and must defend.

Frank Roy: May I first thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this important—not just important but, quite frankly, unprecedented—debate to take place? The question that has been asked is: why should Parliament just allow another nation to determine the way in which we work on behalf of the people we represent? The answer is that we should not just allow that to happen without a proper debate and without making sure that our views are known.
	Our Committee agreed on 22 July to hold an inquiry into the United Kingdom’s relations with Hong Kong 30 years after the signing of the joint declaration in 1984. The inquiry’s terms of reference were wide-ranging, with four pillars. The Committee planned to assess, first, the FCO’s monitoring of the joint declaration via its six-monthly reports; secondly, the Government’s relationship with the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; thirdly, business, trade and cultural links; and fourthly, the work of the British Council.
	The Committee received letters from the Chinese ambassador, the Chinese Parliament and Hong Kong Government representation in London urging us to cancel our inquiry. They argued that the inquiry would constitute interference in their internal affairs and provide a platform for “unlawful propositions” on democratic reform. Indeed, the ambassador warned that our inquiry would
	“ultimately harm the interests of Britain.”
	As our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), so ably said, he informed the Chinese that we understood the sensitivities involved in our inquiry, but intended to continue with it and with the visit that we planned to make to Hong Kong at the end of the month.
	The visit would have been an important opportunity to meet a range of people in Hong Kong—not just politicians or those at the top of the tree, but business people, ordinary working people and, yes, probably student protesters. The students have a point of view, and they deserve to have it heard. We would also have spoken to the people in our hotel and the people we met in the street. We were not hoping to have some high-level, closed-door discussion.
	The Chinese Government have all but accused us of providing support and a platform for the protesters. That is not what the inquiry is about and it is not what our visit would have been about. Unfortunately, that is where it is beginning to head. We had never mentioned Occupy Central. We announced that we were holding the inquiry in July. The announcement about the elections in Hong Kong was not made until 31 August. That is when the demonstrations started.
	At every point along the way, we have made it clear that we want the inquiry to be balanced, objective and, most importantly, evidence based. We want to hear a range of views and perspectives from all sides, including the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities—I repeat, including
	the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. We have made it clear that we have no intention of meddling in China’s internal affairs. That is not why we were elected as parliamentarians. However, we are focused on doing our job, which is to scrutinise our Foreign and Commonwealth Office—to scrutinise the work of the men and women of the FCO and the job that they do for the United Kingdom.

Mark Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the reasons why the Chinese authorities were not happy about the visit of the Select Committee. They said that it
	“may send the wrong signals to the figures of ‘Occupy Central’”.
	Can he allay the fears of the Hong Kong authorities by saying that in visiting and talking to people who are demonstrating, we are not necessarily indicating that we support them?

Frank Roy: That is exactly what we had hoped to do. We had hoped to speak to as many people as possible and hear as many views as possible. We wanted to ensure that no matter what our inquiry said at the end, it was evidence based. We were not going there to be a cheerleader for Occupy Central, but we were not going there to ignore it either.
	Unfortunately, on Friday last week, we were told directly that the Chinese Government would not allow us to enter the territory of Hong Kong. As I said earlier, that is unprecedented. During this Parliament alone, the Foreign Affairs Committee has visited countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, which have had internal problems and which would not have been too happy about the Committee doing an inquiry. Regardless of their opinions, we were allowed to visit, to meet people and to publish our reports. In previous Parliaments, as we have heard, the Committee has visited China, including Tibet. We have never been denied entry to any country. In fact, no Committee of this House has ever been denied entry to any country.

Rehman Chishti: The hon. Gentleman says that the Select Committee has been denied entry into Hong Kong. Has the Committee considered going ahead with its proposed visit and being turned away by the Chinese authorities to show the significance of what has taken place? That would clearly show the international community the contempt with which the Foreign Affairs Committee is being treated. What hope can the demonstrators have of how they will be treated by those same authorities?

Frank Roy: There is an argument for doing that. Unfortunately, the Committee would not be allowed to board the flight in London, because it is against the law for somebody to take a flight to somewhere they know they will not gain entry to.

Richard Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a select committee of the National People’s Congress wished to visit Britain, it is inconceivable that we would decline its members a visa?

Frank Roy: Absolutely. Think of the uproar there would be if we suddenly said to Chinese parliamentarians, “You are not coming to this country. You are not
	coming into this building.” It does not take a huge brain to work out the uproar that would result from such a ban if it were the other way around.

Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that it is my understanding that a delegation from China is coming to Parliament this week.

Frank Roy: If they are coming this week, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in saying that they are most welcome to attend Parliament and to have a full and frank discussion on any subject they wish to raise with any politician.
	I was talking about areas that we have visited where one would imagine that there could have been problems. Several Members recently returned from the Kurdistan region of Iraq, which we visited in connection with our current inquiry into Kurdistan. Like Hong Kong, it is a sub-region within a sovereign country. Kurdistan is constitutionally very sensitive for the Iraqi Government, but the Iraqis were welcoming and helpful. They understood that we were travelling there not to build on discord or to start a row, but to do a job on behalf of the people we represent and ultimately, we hope, to make more people understand the problems that there are in Iraq and Kurdistan.
	The Prime Minister’s spokesperson said yesterday that the Prime Minister believed that the decision was mistaken. He said that it served only to
	“amplify concerns about the situation in Hong Kong, rather than diminish them.”
	As the Chairman of the Select Committee said so eloquently, China’s decision to deny us entry sends a worrying signal about its direction of travel regarding Hong Kong. It is also a worrying signal for the people of Taiwan and the Government of Taipei. We must be under no illusion: the people of Taiwan and the Government of Taipei will be watching this situation and asking, “Is this where we could go? Is this what could happen to us?” Who could blame them if they did?
	I will be grateful if the Minister answers five questions when he sums up. First, how do the Government intend to respond to this unprecedented ban? Secondly, what meetings and conversations have Ministers sought or held with their counterparts in China in the past five days to discuss this issue? Thirdly, has the FCO called in the ambassador? Fourthly, has the United Kingdom’s embassy in China protested formally to the Chinese Government about the ban, and if not, why not? Lastly, what does the Minister think the ban says about China’s approach to the United Kingdom and the work of democratically elected parliamentarians?
	The decision to ban our Select Committee is wrong and totally undemocratic. It must not go unchallenged.

Andrew Rosindell: I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) for his robust defence of the right of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to carry out an inquiry into a subject that it has every reason and right to examine.
	The shameful action by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to deny the Select Committee the ability to visit Hong Kong in order to conduct our legitimate business is a demonstration to the entire world that China has little respect for freedom, free speech and democracy. It is a sad state of affairs, which will have grave implications for British-Chinese relations for a long time to come.
	I first visited Hong Kong in 1996, when Lord Patten of Barnes was the Governor of the Crown colony. It was indeed then one of Her Majesty’s Crown colonies. The people of Hong Kong did not choose to have that status taken from them, of course; that was imposed upon them without their consent. Two years earlier, in 1982, the people of the Falkland Islands had their right to freedom and self-determination upheld by Her Majesty’s Government. Although the circumstances were very different, it cannot be denied that the people of Hong Kong were not accorded the same rights.
	Today, 30 years later, the streets of Hong Kong are filled with young people who, understandably, demand freedom and democracy—basic rights that the People’s Republic of China continues to deny them. The Sino-British joint declaration made clear the expectations between the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic of China regarding the sovereignty of Hong Kong and how it should be governed. I am deeply saddened that over recent weeks and months, the assurances given to Her Majesty’s Government at that time have been forced into question by Beijing’s actions.
	Over the past three decades, Britain and China have enjoyed a growing partnership, in which trade and bilateral relations have been strengthened. China’s behaviour this week is wholly inconsistent with the positive diplomatic trend that our two nations have observed since 1984. It is nothing short of an outrage that the Foreign Affairs Committee of this democratic House of Commons, the mother of Parliaments, should be treated in such a way by an undemocratic Chinese Government. I am gravely concerned about the aggressive and confrontational position that China has taken on a matter of such importance. In the 21st century, there is no place for such an attitude. It is an unjustified attack not only on elected British parliamentarians but on transparency and on democracy itself.
	What exactly is China trying to hide from us? It is the right of the Committee to carry out an inquiry into relations with Hong Kong and to formulate its report. It is beyond question that it is within the gift of the British Foreign Affairs Committee to examine not only British-Hong Kong relations but adherence to the joint declaration. As a joint signatory, we must of course have the right to look at whether that agreement is being upheld, both in the letter and the spirit of the accord.
	Denying the Committee the right to visit Hong Kong does not close the door on the issue at all, as China may have hoped. In fact, it has brought it to the world’s attention. The Foreign Affairs Committee will not back down. We still intend to visit Hong Kong, and our inquiry continues. By its actions, what China has actually achieved is to raise many serious questions in the eyes of this House and the British people—questions that must now be answered. The British Government must show no hesitation in demanding an immediate response. I ask the Minister whether he will insist that
	the Chinese ambassador be called to the Foreign Office to explain his Government’s actions. I certainly hope that he will.
	As many of my colleagues have stated, Britain has no interest in interfering in the internal politics of China. However, Hong Kong is different. Britain has a duty to the people of Hong Kong, and we must not abandon them. The United Kingdom owes them an allegiance—many of them served bravely in Her Majesty’s armed forces, and it is imperative that we do not back down from such an important commitment to them.
	Today, there are still many former Hong Kong servicemen living in the territory, and they are seeking British citizenship. They are people who fought, and were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, for this country, and we should care deeply for their well-being and status. They are servicemen from the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and the Hong Kong Royal Naval Service who did not receive a UK passport following the handover of Hong Kong to China. Those men and their ancestors served British commitments in south-east Asia greatly. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain through two world wars, and in France, Burma, Korea, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong and China, and they served the United Kingdom—King, Queen, empire, Commonwealth and country—for all those years. The British Government must surely now recognise that the decision not to give all those servicemen a right to British nationality was unjust and an error of judgment that should be rectified.
	I had hoped that the Foreign Affairs Committee would be able to meet some of those loyal ex-servicemen while we were in Hong Kong, but alas, that will now not happen. The actions of the Chinese Government have highlighted why Her Majesty’s Government should now be prepared to offer all those Hong Kong ex-servicemen the right to a British passport. I ask the Minister directly whether Her Majesty’s Government will urgently review their policy on that issue.
	Moreover, I believe that we are at a crossroads. We are in a position where serious decisions must be taken. Britain has to decide whether we tolerate and simply accept China’s behaviour or whether we demonstrate that we are prepared fundamentally to reconsider what until now has been a positive bilateral relationship that we share with China.
	The Home Secretary recently announced that 25,000 visas would be given free to Chinese nationals. Of course we must strengthen and embolden links between Britain and China, but it is now clear that China has the ability to behave in an irrational and confrontational manner, so such special arrangements must surely be brought into question.
	Alternatively, China could, even at this stage, draw back from the brink, accept that Hong Kong is different and allow the people of that territory the right to make their own choices about their own future. It must be made clear that China cannot take British co-operation for granted. Britain is a strong nation—we have the sixth-largest economy in the world, and our trade with China is largely one-sided. So we must not be afraid to stand firm for our national interests and the interests of people who were part of our British family, whom we have pledged to support, simply in fear of potential trade repercussions.
	Britain cannot and will not be bullied. If China is not prepared to honour the spirit of the 1984 joint declaration, Britain will have no choice but to conclude that the hand of friendship and trust that Margaret Thatcher held out to China 30 years ago has been betrayed.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the passionate and robust speech of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), which showed the concern among Members of all parties, and all Select Committees, about how the Foreign Affairs Committee has been treated. All but two members of that Committee have spoken in today’s debate, and I am sure that others will want to catch your eye, Mr Speaker. I wanted to speak after they had had the opportunity to express their views, and I am grateful to you for calling me.
	I am also grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this Standing Order No. 24 debate to allow the House to discuss this matter. I have been in the House for 27 years, and I know that the standard response of most occupants of the Chair when right hon. and hon. Members ask for such a debate is to say no. You said yes, which must have come as a surprise to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is the only time this year that an emergency debate has been granted, and although I had originally planned to come to the Chamber and speak on the Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, I can well understand your desire to allow the House to debate the Hong Kong issue, which is urgent and important and should take precedence over all other activities and debates in the House. Thank you for allowing the debate.
	I pay tribute to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is normally a quiet, modest individual. It is rare for him to use the House as a platform to prosecute a case on behalf of his Committee. The last time he did so, as I recall, was over the attempts to close the World Service. He led the debate on that and there was a successful outcome. I hope he will have similar success, having asked for the present debate. We wait with bated breath to see what the Chinese Government decide to do.
	This is an important debate not just for the Foreign Affairs Committee, but for every Committee of the House. I hope the Foreign Office will take note of it. I do not think the House understands the huge amount of time and effort invested by the Clerks and the Chairs of Committees when we decide to travel abroad. I chair the Home Affairs Committee. By its nature it does not do much travelling, although we will be going as far as Calais on Friday; I hope very much that we will be allowed to enter Calais when we get there.

Mike Gapes: Are you going by lorry?

Keith Vaz: No, by Eurostar.
	A huge amount of time is spent organising such travel by a Committee, involving everyone from the Clerk of the Committee and the operation manager in the Clerks Department to a more senior Clerk, and ending up with the most senior Clerk of all—some of the most senior Clerks sit in front of you, Mr Speaker. Then the bid comes back to the Chair because the cost is too high, and the bid has to be re-entered and we have to change all the arrangements. A huge amount of work
	must have gone into the bid by the Chair of the Select Committee and it must have taken months to put the arrangements together. To be knocked back at the end for no good reason is extremely depressing and distressing for members of the Committee.
	I want to ensure that we set a precedent today and that we send out a strong and powerful message, not so much to the Chinese Government—I am not so arrogant as to believe that the entire Chinese Cabinet is sitting in Beijing watching the proceedings of the House today—but to the Foreign Office. That message was put powerfully from either side of the House, most recently by the hon. Member for Romford. When we arrange these visits, we always do so with the encouragement and support of the Foreign Office. We cannot, as Committees of this House, organise a visit to a place such as China, or even to Calais, without informing the posts abroad. In our case, in France, we have a first-class ambassador, Peter Ricketts, who has organised an incredible programme in the space of just 10 days.
	I do not know our current ambassador to Beijing, but I am sure that embassy staff would have put as much effort into the proposed programme of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is not enough for the Government to say, “Well, this is Parliament, and Parliament is separate from the Government, and you must do this on your own.” I am not sure, because I did not read the press release put out by the Foreign Office, if the word “regrettable” was used. That would probably be quite serious, in the context of the words used by the Foreign Office. It is so long since I have been there that I have forgotten the hierarchy of words and which term constitutes a condemnation from the British Foreign Office, but to the public it would not seem strong enough.
	A Select Committee of this House wishes to visit a country that is a friendly country and that has been visited so many times by Ministers—I think more Ministers have visited China than any other country in the world, apart from India. The Prime Minister has been there recently, encouraging many, many Chinese students to come to this country. We have 80,000 Chinese students studying in the United Kingdom. The number of applications from China since the Prime Minister’s visit has shot up, whereas the number of applications from India has gone down. Chinese graduate students make up 25% of all graduates from overseas studying in our country.
	We want a very clear response from the Foreign Office. I hope the Minister can use his best endeavours to try to persuade the Chinese Government to change their mind. After all, is the Committee going to interfere with the proper running of the Chinese Government? I have looked down the list of members of the Committee. I see no known troublemakers on the list. I see three distinguished knights of the realm among the 11 members. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who might be considered a troublemaker, is actually a very reasonable man. He was trying to buy a slice of cake in the Tea Room earlier on. I persuaded him to take a banana so that he would not get diabetes and he readily agreed to do so. Members of the Committee are all Members who would want to make a positive contribution through their visit.
	Select Committee visits are not about taking the flag and planting it in the middle of the biggest piazza in Hong Kong. That is not what they are about. The aim
	of such visits is fact-finding. The Committee is going to find out the facts about what is happening so that members can come back and write their report. That is what all Select Committees do when we travel. It is important that Select Committees travel, even though we are sometimes criticised by the press, and the number of visits and the amount of money spent are publicised. The best way to find out what is happening abroad is to go there, speak to people and ask them what is happening.
	We were criticised because the Home Affairs Committee was conducting an inquiry into drugs and we decided to go to Colombia. One or two of the usual suspects in the Press Gallery wanted to know what the Home Affairs Committee was doing in Colombia. We were going to look at cocaine production and see what the Colombian Government were doing to try to stop cocaine entering Europe. Some 60% of all the cocaine that enters Europe comes into the United Kingdom. That is why we went, and our report was so much better for our doing so. That is all the Foreign Affairs Committee wants to do.
	On behalf of my Committee and, I hope, other Committees and other Chairs, I can say that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and its members have our full support. Even at this late stage, I hope the Minister can persuade the Chinese Government, through the ambassador or by other means, to change their mind and allow the Committee to visit so that it can produce a good, fair and balanced report, as the Foreign Affairs Committee has always done.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this important debate. I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—I would almost call him my right hon. Friend; he just happens to be in a different party.
	We have had a sober and reflective debate and I want to add one or two points.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), I first visited Hong Kong just before the handover in 1996. I met Chris Patten, the then Governor, and his two dogs, and we had a cordial and productive meeting. I am chairman of the Conservative Friends of the Chinese and I chair Chinese breakfasts in the House and have had frequent high-level meetings with Chinese diplomats. I therefore have some insight into the Chinese character and psyche.
	I have recently been conducting a quiet campaign to see whether we can align British visas with Schengen visas, not in any way weakening the British biometric visa system but aligning the two systems so that a family coming from China does not have to undergo two separate applications. I have been patiently negotiating with the Home Secretary over this issue. If we could resolve it we would get many more Chinese visitors to this country.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East mentioned that there were 80,000 Chinese students in this country. I believe the figure is over 100,000. They represent one of the largest student blocs from any country. That shows how welcoming we are to Chinese students in this country. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of Chinese post-graduates in the UK. Some of those students are at the university in my constituency, the Royal Agricultural university. The principal says that he
	likes Chinese students because not only do they pay well, but they work hard and teach his other students how to work. There is a lot of synergy.
	At the time of the handover I discovered that the wise negotiations between Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher in 1984 recognised a number of things, including that the way of life in Hong Kong should broadly be preserved for the next 50 years. The Chinese and the National People’s Congress adopted their own system of Basic Law, and my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee cited the most important article, article 45. It is worth repeating that because it is the Chinese Government’s Basic Law—they adopted it, not us, and it states:
	“The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”
	That was the Chinese Government’s own process.
	Since then, there has been progress in Hong Kong. I visited just a fortnight ago, and I walked down Nathan road and saw the protesters. I have been there many times since 1996, and each time I cannot help marvelling at its progress. It is an amazingly dynamic place. Progress has been made on the democratic front with the election of Legislative Council members and there is now the aspiration to elect the new chief executive by universal suffrage, going from a nomination committee first of 400 people, then 800, and now 1,200. The process is going in the right direction.
	Hong Kong is an important national asset for this country, and others, and the links between the economies and people of Hong Kong and the UK are huge. Some 40% of British investment in Asia goes directly to Hong Kong. That was just under £36 billion at the end of 2012, and there was £7 billion of trade with Hong Kong last year. As I know from my discussions with them, British companies are always welcome in Hong Kong and it is a fantastic place to do business. Indeed, it is reckoned to be the second easiest place to do business, whereas this country is in 8th place. One reason for that is that Hong Kong has a system of low bureaucracy, low taxation and an independent judiciary based on English law. Around 130 British companies have regional bases in Hong Kong, and many countries around the world see it through that light. Hong Kong is the economic jewel in China’s crown, and it is in China’s interest to ensure that it continues to prosper. Large businesses and capital are very portable in the 21st century and could easily move to other centres such as Singapore if financiers and other businessmen feel that the governance of Hong Kong is not going in the right direction. The importance of Hong Kong could diminish, and other competitors will overtake it.

Mark Pawsey: My hon. Friend is speaking about the attraction of Hong Kong for young people who want to set up a business and the business environment there, but in the 1984 declaration Hong Kong was intended to be “one country” with “two systems”. Does my hon. Friend believe that that principle is exemplified by the actions of the Chinese authorities in this instance?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention and I will address his point directly in a minute.
	It is unfortunate that we have to debate this situation, following the news that the Foreign Affairs Committee will not be granted entry to Hong Kong. As I said, I visited Hong Kong recently and paid visits to Mong Kok. I walked down Nathan road where I saw relatively few tents and protesters, and numbers were beginning to dwindle. Whether by coincidence or not, the situation seems to have flared up again in the last few days in conjunction with the proposed Foreign Affairs Committee visit.
	Demonstrations have throughout been largely peaceful and without interference from the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities, and it is a tribute to both sides that they have managed to keep the protests within peaceful bounds. I absolutely understand the aims and aspirations of the demonstrators. My neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) secured a debate on Hong Kong in Westminster Hall the other day, in which I outlined the disparity between those in Hong Kong who have, and those who have not. People are finding it difficult to get on the housing ladder or get decent jobs, and in some cases it is difficult to get a decent education. The authorities in Hong Kong need to address those issues. It is not that Hong Kong is not dynamic or successful economically, it is that it is not benefiting everybody. There is a class—particularly some of the younger people—who are being left behind, and that is leading to demonstrations. People want a greater say in the way Hong Kong is run.
	Wanting to ensure that relations between this country and China were not damaged, I met high-level representatives from the Chinese embassy in Parliament last week. I tried hard to convey to them a number of things, including that we have a separation of powers in this country, that right hon. and hon. Members of the House are representatives of the people and able to do exactly what they like and can form Committees to investigate matters around the world, and that my right hon. Friend’s Foreign Affairs Committee is entitled to investigate any matter in which the British Government have an interest, including Hong Kong.
	I think I failed in that part of my discussions. It is hard for those in a Government run by a communist system, who say to representatives in the Communist party, “You will not do that”, to understand that Members of Her Majesty’s Government—I welcome the Minister to his place—cannot simply say to a Committee or Member of the House, “You will not do this; you will do that.”

Richard Graham: On that point, has my hon. Friend heard members of the Chinese embassy say, as they have said to me, that ultimately the Government decide what happens in Parliament, in Committees and all-party groups, and even in Buckingham palace?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right—that is exactly what they think and they have conveyed that to me. Somehow we must keep on repeating the facts about how this country operates.

Mr Speaker: Order. Pursuant to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, perhaps it would be helpful for the Chinese to realise, by being told in terms, that the decision to grant this debate is the decision of the Chair, and it is not interfered with or commented on, or the subject of
	representations by the Government one way or the other. I cannot be clearer than that. I know that, the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) knows that, the Chair of Foreign Affairs Committee and the House know that, and it is time the Chinese Government knew it as well.

Richard Graham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would be in order for the Speaker’s Office to contact the Chinese embassy to put it straight on what the protocols are?

Mr Speaker: I think I have just done so, but I am happy to communicate as necessary with the Chinese, if the House would think that helpful.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was trying to explain to the Chinese authorities how our parliamentary system works, and your intervention, Mr Speaker, has more than amply demonstrated the true situation.
	The second point that I tried to explain to senior Chinese representatives was that if they allowed my right hon. Friend’s Committee to visit Hong Kong, not only would the Committee see for itself that the demonstrations were dwindling, more importantly it would see the huge economic success and dynamism of Hong Kong. As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said, there is nothing like seeing with one’s own eyes the true situation on the ground, and it is more likely that the Committee’s report would have been more favourable to Hong Kong. By taking this action, the whole situation has been whipped up and made far worse.
	The third thing I said was that it would be better if we could keep the whole matter as low key as possible, try to avoid it getting into the press, and discuss it behind the scenes and consider what measures could be taken to avoid the problem.
	We are in limbo, but the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) hit the nail on the head when she said that the best thing—I suggested this to the Chinese authorities last week—would be for the visit to be postponed. I know I am slightly at odds with the House, but I have a hypothetical situation to put to it. Suppose the Chinese authorities were about to send a high-level delegation to the UK at the height of severe riots in Chinatown, with buildings being burned down. What if we said, “Please don’t send your delegation now, but we are very happy to see you in a month or two”? I believe from my discussions that, if quiet diplomacy goes on behind the scenes, the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to visit Hong Kong some time next year. That might be after the end of the inquiry—I do not know—but it is important that quiet diplomacy takes place.
	I was heavily involved in the Dalai Lama affair. In the light of that, I have learned—one needs to learn in life. Had the Dalai Lama situation been handled very slightly differently, our relationship with the Chinese would have been much easier in the past two or three years.
	It is important that we have good relations with the Chinese. I believe a member of the royal family will visit China next year, and we have high-level leadership visits next year both in this country and in China. Rather than meeting each other head to head, we are more
	likely to achieve what we want to achieve in Hong Kong through good relationships. There has been substantial progress.

Daniel Kawczynski: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was about to wind up, but my hon. Friend is itching to get in.

Daniel Kawczynski: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in the international department of the Conservative party, which he has done for a long time. He has told us what he said to the Chinese delegation, but will he allude to its response?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am more than happy to do so, because I conveyed the response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. The Chinese delegation said in terms that, if the Foreign Affairs Committee were to press ahead with its visit, it would be barred entry. When I went to Hong Kong a fortnight ago, I did not need a visa. Therefore, the Chinese have to take other action to bar entry, such as stopping my right hon. Friend and the Committee from getting on the plane. Bearing that in mind, this is an extremely serious occurrence. The Chinese made it clear that they understood that, because they said that there would be harm to British-Sino relations. That is the response I conveyed to my right hon. Friend. He rightly took his own decision after taking counsel from his Committee—they decided to press ahead with the visit. That is the state of affairs.
	I say to the House that we should have quiet diplomacy. It is in everybody’s interest that this country has excellent relations with China. That does not mean to say that we should not criticise China quietly behind the scenes over human rights, animal rights and various aspects that we do not like. I would say this to the Chinese: please follow the dictum of Deng Xiaoping; please be an internationalist country; and please do not start closing in and becoming isolationist—one or two trends have emerged in the past two months since the change of leadership. After all, Deng Xiaoping said that a flow of water must be carefully channelled. A former Prime Minister of this country said we should trust the people. I say this to the Chinese authorities: let us trust the people of Hong Kong; let us keep Hong Kong the jewel that it is; and let us include everybody in that growth and increasing prosperity.

John Baron: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I congratulate our Chairman on the measured and yet resolute manner in which he has dealt with the matter. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge that.
	I am almost tail-end Charlie, and time is beginning to press, so I will dwell on a couple of points that have not been covered in the debate. It has been said outside this place that China does not fully understand how our system works, and that the Foreign Affairs Committee is basically a part of the Government. Hon. Members know that that is clearly not the case. If anybody seriously believes that any member of the Committee is a mouthpiece for the Government, they have no idea
	how Parliament works. They need take only a cursory glance at what happens in Parliament to get a more accurate picture. That leads me to suggest that the situation is not a result of negligence, an accident or a simple misunderstanding, but a result of a fundamental wish to ignore the facts. A country with the size, wealth and intelligence of China cannot fail to understand that the Foreign Affairs Committee is not the mouthpiece of the Government or involved in the Government in any way. Our job is to scrutinise. Some of us take our responsibilities more seriously than others, but there is no doubt about the Committee’s role.
	There are repercussions for both parties when a treaty is not respected. There is no doubt that the Sino-British joint declaration is an international agreement. It is a treaty and was lodged with the UN—if there is any doubt, the treaty number is 23391. This is therefore not about interfering or meddling in the internal affairs of China. China very willingly signed up to the agreement and is a counterparty. Let us be clear about what the agreement says. It mentions Hong Kong having a high degree of autonomy, and rights, freedoms and lifestyles remaining unchanged for 50 years. The fact that China has reneged on that treaty—there is no other way of putting it—has repercussions for both sides, because it takes two to sign a treaty.
	As has been mentioned, the repercussions for the Chinese will be profound, although perhaps not immediate. What message does the situation send to the world? What message does it send to Taiwan? If China wants Taiwan to return to the fold, this is not the way to go about it. Not only reneging on the treaty but stopping us entering Hong Kong shows weakness rather than strength. China has shot itself in the foot.
	There are also repercussions for the UK. I suggest that the UK has a moral responsibility to do what it can to ensure that China respects its commitments not only to the treaty and the spirit of that treaty, but to everything that follows. That includes allowing access by democratic bodies to visit Hong Kong.
	The term “honourable” is an old-fashioned one, but I believe it remains a strong word, as I hope most hon. Members do. We should live our lives by it. We risk being dishonourable as a country if we do not hold China to its commitments. We know that the joint declaration lacks an arbitration clause and that, therefore, little process or recourse is allowed to check China if it transgresses, but there is little doubt what the treaty tries to achieve.
	It is clear that China has reneged on the treaty, but we have that honourable responsibility to hold China to account. We must be clear that there is a danger that the term “dishonourable” could be applied if we are not careful. We need to look carefully at the UK Government’s response to events so far. Hong Kong 2020, a pro-democracy group, has described the UK as “sleeping on watch” with regard to the weakness of its response to the Chinese treaty transgressions. Human Rights Watch believes our response has been “shamefully weak” so far. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that we need to look at how we are responding to China’s treaty transgressions. The treaty places obligations on both sides, and we must do what we can to ensure that we hold true to our end of the treaty and act in a totally honourable way.

Gerald Howarth: My son is in Hong Kong working as a banker. He tells me pretty much the same thing: that there is concern that the British Government have perhaps been slower than they might have been. I accept the sensitivities around this issue, but is it not the case that the demonstrators have behaved in the most extraordinarily restrained fashion? I believe they have put up huge notices saying, “We apologise for the inconvenience caused” and cleaned up all the litter. This is not the sort of demonstration we are accustomed to in the western world.

John Baron: Absolutely right—my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is not mob rule. The protests could not be described as any flagrant breach of the law. People are exercising the rights that we ourselves suggested they should have when we signed the Sino-British joint declaration. The action they have taken so far has been totally within the declaration, yet the Chinese have transgressed on that agreement. Our response has been very weak indeed. I would like to hear more from the Minister on what the British Government will do to make it clear that the Chinese entered the agreement in good faith, as did the British, and that all rights, responsibilities and freedoms under the law should be upheld by the Chinese authorities.
	Just as China has shot itself in the foot by taking the action it has so far—not just with regard to banning the Committee from entering Hong Kong, but in transgressing on the agreement—we, too, have a downside risk in this affair. By not protesting enough—by not holding the Chinese Government to account and by continuing to be somewhat weak in our response in defence of the protesters who are operating within the law and the terms of the agreement—our reputation will suffer. We must not allow that to happen. This House must not allow it to happen. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the British Government intend to toughen up their response to this outrage.

Nadhim Zahawi: I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for granting this emergency debate, and in commending the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), for the way he has behaved throughout this inquiry, and as I am sure he will continue to do as it moves forward.
	The Chinese Government have said that my Committee has no business being in Hong Kong. They are wrong on three counts, the first of which is legal. The United Kingdom has a treaty obligation to the people of Hong Kong, to which the People’s Republic of China is a signatory. We have heard that over and over in this debate. This is very much our business. The Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 is lodged with the UN and commits China to maintaining the Hong Kong way of life until 2047. Until the treaty expires, we have a duty to ensure that the Chinese are meeting their obligations, both to us as co-signatories and to the people of Hong Kong as beneficiaries of the joint declaration. China has shown that it is committed to upholding the international order and that it places great emphasis on the principle of national sovereignty. By undermining a
	treaty, signed with another sovereign state and registered with the UN, it is undermining the very international order to which it claims to belong.
	Secondly, the Chinese Government are wrong to exclude us, because it is counter-productive to do so. My Committee is not just looking at the joint declaration, but considering UK-Hong Kong relations as a whole. The UK and Hong Kong have extremely close ties of history, culture and commerce. Other hon. Members have spoken eloquently on the first two, so I will confine my remarks to the third. We are Hong Kong’s eleventh biggest trading partner. More than 560 British companies operate there and the region accounts for 35% of all UK investment in Asia—although my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) has told me that the figure is 40%. This year, a record number of Hong Kong students—more than 4,000—received offers to study at British universities. As a major financial centre, we co-operate closely on global financial governance. Of course, we both have a key role to play in helping China internationalise its currency, the renminbi. This is a time when we should be deepening and strengthening that relationship, because all parties have so much to gain. We should be over there, meeting businesses and universities, asking what more we can do to increase our mutual prosperity. Instead, we are here, debating whether China is ready to be a responsible member of the international community.
	The third reason why the ban is wrong is that it is misguided. The Chinese Government have decided that they do not like our conclusions before we have even had a chance to make them. That means that they will not have a chance to tell their side of the story. It also means they will not see a House of Commons Select Committee in action. That is a shame, because if the Chinese saw what we do, they might find our Committee system had a useful application within their own Government. Independent committees, with the power to hold public bodies to account, could go a long way towards tackling China’s corruption problems, for example. Rather than a lecture, however, the inquiry could have been a genuine exchange of ideas.
	We in this House have a lot to learn from Hong Kong and what can be achieved when backing business and getting behind free markets. Hong Kong is one of the best examples we have that Britain has been a force for good in the world. We signed the joint declaration because we believe in the rule of law, free speech and individual rights. With the important exception of representative democracy, Hong Kong is a living embodiment of our values. For that reason alone, we have a clear and legitimate interest in the future of the region. We do not seek to tell the Chinese how to run their country, but rather to ensure that they are holding up their side of an international agreement, an agreement which has been of great benefit to them. If we cannot be there in person, what we can do is send a clear message to the people of Hong Kong that this House believes in their aspirations, shares their commitment to liberty and the law, and calls on their Government to safeguard their way of life in line with their international obligations.

Kerry McCarthy: We are grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate, and grateful to the right hon. Member for Croydon South
	(Sir Richard Ottaway) for making the application for the debate under Standing Order No. 24.
	As we have heard, the House is united in its concern—indeed, its unhappiness—that the Foreign Affairs Committee has been prevented from visiting Hong Kong. We have also heard that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was denied a visa for the all-party group on China’s visit to Shanghai, causing that visit to be abandoned at short notice too. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), among others, referred to what he described as the Dalai Lama affair, when there was concern about the Prime Minister being refused a visa to visit China after his meeting with the Dalai Lama.
	Speakers in today’s debate have also raised wider concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) highlighted issues relating to press freedom and the repression of journalists, and spoke of the problems she encountered on an earlier visit to China. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), a long-serving member of the Select Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) spoke about their attempts to visitTaiwan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) spoke of his apprehension about the future of Hong Kong when he was there at the time of the handover, and the hon. Member for Gloucester told us of his substantial experience of working in the region and on fostering Sino-British relations, including by setting up a charity. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) focused on how we should not let our desire to trade with China, and the importance of China as a potential trading partner, deter us from raising other issues, such as human rights, animal welfare and wildlife crime.
	Select Committees are an integral part of our parliamentary democracy. The FAC’s reports are always informative and make an invaluable contribution to the scrutiny of the Foreign Office, and as the Chair detailed, overseas visits are an important party of the Committee’s work in that they offer a greater insight into the countries being visited and the opportunity to foster bilateral relations. As stressed by several speakers, independence is a fundamental feature of Select Committees. It is not for the Government or the Opposition to seek to interfere with their inquiries or determine with whom they can or should meet—or indeed where they should visit.
	Neither is it for other Governments to intervene or seek to ward off Committee members. Over the summer, I was therefore troubled to read the letters from the Hong Kong Government, the Chinese Foreign Affairs Committee and His Excellency the Ambassador explicitly requesting that the Committee cease its inquiry and intimating there would be serious consequences for UK-China relations if it did not do so. The ambassador’s letter warned that the Committee’s inquiry
	“will ultimately harm the interests of Britain”,
	and the letter from the Chinese equivalent of the FAC advised Committee members to
	“bear in mind the larger picture of China-UK relations”.
	We value a strong relationship with China, as several speakers have said, and we do not believe that the independent decisions of the FAC should affect this. It is important to emphasise, as others have done, that its
	inquiry is in no way intended to interfere in the sovereign affairs of China. The operation of “one country, two systems” and the implementation of Hong Kong’s Basic Law are matters for the Governments of China and the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, as I made clear to the Vice-Minister in the International Department of the Communist party of China’s Central Committee when I met him this morning. The Committee’s interest in Hong Kong does not signify any latent imperialist tendencies on the UK’s part. I think we are all very aware, when we take an interest in other countries’ affairs, particularly where there is a direct British colonial legacy, that we should avoid giving such an impression.
	We should also recognise that the joint declaration specifically affords Hong Kong
	“a high degree of autonomy”.
	However, it is a matter for the UK, working with China, to ensure the continued success of the Sino-British joint declaration signed by our two countries 30 years ago, and it is also a matter for the UK to honour the joint commitments it made to the people of Hong Kong to facilitate the handover in 1997. Accordingly, the FAC decided to scrutinise the Foreign Office’s implementation of and respect for the agreement.
	The joint declaration states:
	“Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”
	As a signatory to a binding, international treaty, the UK must speak up if the agreement is not fully upheld. It is deeply troubling to hear that the Chair of the Committee was told that China regarded the joint declaration as no longer in force and as having ended at the time of the handover. We all noted the contribution from the former Foreign Secretary, who made it clear that this was not the intention when the agreement was entered into.
	We have all seen the scenes in Hong Kong: the clashes between protestors and the Hong Kong police and the authorities’ use of force. The protestors have sought discussions with the Chinese authorities and a resolution to the different views within Hong Kong on the best form of universal suffrage there. Reports indicate that their negotiating team has previously been prevented from travelling to China for talks—another worrying sign—and it should be noted that the joint declaration refers to freedom of travel being ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
	Following the violence in recent days, one of the student leaders has now announced a hunger strike in an attempt to secure talks with the Hong Kong Government. We believe this situation can only be resolved by dialogue involving the Chinese Government, the Hong Kong authorities and representatives of the pro-democracy campaigners. However, while the response is a matter for the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments, it is appropriate to raise our concerns. Members would be concerned by reports of pepper spray, batons and water hoses being used, whether in a city in this country or anywhere else around the world.
	As the Opposition, we would also be calling on the Government to speak with their overseas counterparts if we had concerns that basic human rights were not
	being upheld, as we do now. The UK’s responsibilities under the joint declaration add to the imperative to do so. The Government were right to seek assurances from China regarding the police response over the past few months, and we hope that the Minister will continue to do so.
	Parliament also has a particular interest, because we now know that the tear gas was supplied be British companies. Indeed, it seems that the Committees on Arms Export Controls have elicited a change in policy—or perhaps just a confused policy—from the Government. The Business Secretary wrote to the Chair of the Committees on 28 October to confirm that he had accepted the advice of the Foreign Secretary that the use of tear gas
	“was an uncharacteristic response... not indicative of a wider pattern of behaviour”.
	No licences were revoked or suspended. It has been reported, however, that the Business Secretary told the Committees yesterday that he would “urgently seek advice” on the issue. It is not clear why it has taken so long for him to investigate such a serious matter. We hope he will take it very seriously indeed.
	The Government have a role in offering their support for dialogue and calling for the basic freedoms and rights of all people to be respected and protected. It is vital that Hong Kong can preserve these fundamental rights, and everyone in the House hopes to see all the parties in China and Hong Kong reach agreement on universal suffrage and deliver Hong Kong’s vision for democracy. That would be the most fitting way to celebrate 20 years of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy within China in 2017. Well before then, however, we hope that the FAC will have the opportunity to renew and strengthen its friendly ties with the FAC of the National People’s Congress and that its members will have the opportunity to visit.
	As the Prime Minister’s official spokesman has said, the travel ban
	“only seeks to amplify concerns about the situation in Hong Kong, rather than diminishing concerns”.
	We are all disturbed by these latest developments. UK-China relations are best served and strengthened by a spirit of transparency and co-operation, which I hope the Foreign Office will be able to promote. It would be hugely disappointing if the Committee’s inquiry was allowed to affect the bilateral relationship between the UK and China, and I hope the Minister will use his influence to bring this matter to a speedy and satisfactory resolution—one which allows the Committee to continue its inquiry unimpeded. I hope to visit Hong Kong in the near future.

Hugo Swire: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate, which no doubt will be watched closely here in London, in Beijing and in Hong Kong. The fact that this is only the fifth debate under Standing Order No. 24 to be granted in this Parliament shows the seriousness with which the House takes this issue and demonstrates a clear and strongly held concern that stretches right across party lines.
	I share that concern. The decision to refuse the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee—all of whom, bar one, have been present this afternoon—entry
	into Hong Kong as part of their inquiry is wholly unjustified, counter-productive and, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) and others reminded us, unprecedented. It is also not consistent with the positive trend in UK-China relations over the past year and does not reflect the fact that the UK and China have considerable shared interests in respect of Hong Kong. Nor is it in the spirit of the Sino-British joint declaration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Chair of the FAC, said, the declaration was signed in good faith in 1984 by the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the then Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang. It is lodged at the United Nations and still remains central to Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms.
	The Chinese Government have made clear their opposition to the FAC inquiry on the basis of what they say is “interference” in China’s internal affairs. I am aware of the efforts of the FAC to establish a constructive dialogue with the Chinese embassy and the Hong Kong Trade Office, and the British Government have repeatedly explained to the Chinese authorities that Parliament is completely independent of the Government. As the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) rightly reminded us, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, as a Committee of this House, is also rightly completely independent of Government. The FAC inquiry scrutinised UK Government policy towards Hong Kong. Indeed, that is clear from its title: “The UK’s relations with Hong Kong: 30 years after the Joint Declaration”. It is the Committee’s role in our democracy to hold the Government to account.
	I have made clear to the Chinese ambassador on more than one occasion that the Government would not and could not try to prevent the Committee’s inquiry or its visit to Hong Kong. There are numerous precedents for the FAC visiting Hong Kong—in 1998, 2000 and 2006, each time engaging with the broad range of society in a wholly constructive spirit. When I met Guo Yezhou, Vice-Minister of the Communist party international liaison department yesterday morning, I repeated my concerns. I pointed out again that barring the Committee from Hong Kong is unjustified and, as the Prime Minister has said, “counter-productive”. What is more, it runs counter to the positive trajectory in our bilateral relations over the past year, which have witnessed a welcome increase in dialogue, mutual respect and understanding.
	It is perfectly reasonable for Members of Parliament to want to visit Hong Kong as they scrutinise the British Government’s policy and quite properly hold us to account over it. Barring them from going simply makes it more difficult for them to hear from all sides in order to make an accurate and fair assessment—a point well made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), a former Foreign Secretary.
	In a little over two weeks, we will mark the 30th anniversary of the Sino-British joint declaration on the question of Hong Kong, which set out arrangements for the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong to China under the “one country/two systems” principle. It is, as its name implies, a joint declaration to which both parties made a solemn commitment. As a co-signatory, the United Kingdom has both a legal interest and a moral obligation in the monitoring and implementation
	of that treaty—a treaty that enshrined a high degree of autonomy and basic rights and freedoms for the people of Hong Kong. These are at the heart of Hong Kong’s way of life, and it is vital that they are fully upheld.

Jim Cunningham: One thing the Minister might like to mention to the Chinese ambassador, or for that matter to any Chinese delegation on Hong Kong, is that in the early ’70s when China was not popular with the Nixon Administration, Coventry city council made visits to China and started to link up with the country, which resulted in trade deals.

Hugo Swire: Indeed, and there are many Members who have dedicated their parliamentary careers to furthering relations with China.

Richard Graham: My right hon. Friend mentioned that this year is the 30th anniversary of the signing of the joint declaration. What plans may there be to celebrate this important event?

Hugo Swire: I shall look to my hon. Friend for inspiration as we look forward to commemorating the signing in good faith of that declaration. I am sure he will be full of ideas.
	As I said in the Westminster Hall debate on Hong Kong on 22 October, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) secured, we strongly believe that it is the “autonomy, rights and freedoms” guaranteed by the joint declaration that underpin Hong Kong’s success. He is right, by the way, to raise the regrettable incident recently when he, too, was refused a visa, this time to China itself, and when he and other members of the UK-China Leadership Forum felt they had no choice but to postpone their to visit Shanghai for talks with the Communist party. We again made it clear to the Chinese authorities our view that refusing visas is no kind of solution. It is clearly counter-productive that these talks have not now taken place. The important thing is to pursue dialogue on issues, even where we disagree.
	I would equally emphasise my understanding that the FAC inquiry is focused on the promotion of economic, cultural and educational links, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) stressed the importance of the economy and trading links. Last year, Hong Kong was the UK’s second largest export market in Asia Pacific, and Hong Kong was the UK’s 12th largest investor. In addition, Hong Kong is an important factor in the UK’s dynamic relationship with mainland China—for instance, as Hong Kong and London work together to develop the financial service infrastructure for the internationalisation of the renminbi. These links are beneficial to the UK, China and Hong Kong, and absolutely deserve the attention of the FAC.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) raised the issue of former British servicemen in Hong Kong, and we will look into this, although it is more properly a matter for the Home Department. It is the case, however, that around 250,000 British citizens live in Hong Kong, and a further 3.4 million people—approximately half the population—hold the status of British nationals overseas, giving us a clear consular interest.
	For these reasons, I can assure the House and those following this debate that the Government have been emphasising the context and importance of the inquiry at senior levels through official channels in Beijing, Hong Kong and London. I am grateful for the suggestion made in the press today by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) that the Foreign Office should be engaging with our Chinese counterparts on this matter. I can tell her and others who raise it that that is precisely what we have been doing: our ambassador in Beijing, our consul-general in Hong Kong, myself and the Foreign Secretary have done so repeatedly.

John Baron: Will the Minister give way?

Hugo Swire: I must make progress, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
	We cannot, of course, ignore the context of political protests in Hong Kong, which have now been going on for over two months. We have publicly welcomed the Hong Kong police’s stated commitment to exercise tolerance and restraint. As I have said before, it is essential that Hong Kong citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, including of assembly and demonstration, continue to be respected, as guaranteed by the Sino-British joint declaration. We have consistently called on all sides to ensure that the demonstrations are peaceful and in accordance with the law.
	The issue at the centre of the protests is of course Hong Kong’s democracy, and specifically the arrangements for election of the Chief Executive in 2017. We believe that a transition to universal suffrage will safeguard Hong Kong’s future prosperity and stability, in line with the Basic Law and the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. That is why we continue to encourage the Governments of Hong Kong and China to find a consensus that offers a genuine choice to the people of Hong Kong and gives them a real stake in the 2017 election for the Chief Executive, and then in due course for the elections to the Legislative Council in 2020.
	Of course, the detailed arrangements for reform are for the people of Hong Kong, and the Governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China to determine. The United Kingdom has consistently called on all parties to engage in dialogue within the parameters of the August decision by the National People’s Congress. We believe that there is scope for a consensus that will deliver a meaningful advance for democracy in Hong Kong, consistent with the commitments that have been made.
	As Premier Li himself has said, we have an “indispensable” relationship with China. We have many shared interests, from our bilateral trade to our co-operation on global challenges such as Ebola. It is important for that relationship to be conducted with mutual understanding and respect based on open and honest dialogue, and we will continue our endeavours to that end.

Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the House for the debate. Four things have emerged from it. First, the joint declaration is still alive and well, and this Parliament will continue to take an interest in it. Secondly, it is the view of Parliament that China is the loser in this situation, from both a commercial and a strategic point of view. Thirdly, although bilateral relations will suffer in the short term, we are quite capable of rebuilding them; the question for the Chinese is, are they? The Foreign Affairs Committee remains willing to visit Hong Kong if agreement can be reached. Fourthly, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) posed a number of questions in his speech, and we should be grateful if the Minister could give us answers to them in writing.
	Finally, Mr Speaker, I thank you for your unfailing support for this process. The winner in it is Parliament, and the quality of the debate has justified your decision.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the ban by China on the Foreign Affairs Committee visit to Hong Kong.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Second Reading

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The threat that we face from terrorism is serious, and it is growing. The Security Service believes that since the attacks on 7 July 2005, about 40 terrorist plots have been disrupted. It is thanks to the hard work and dedication of our security and intelligence services, the police, and our allies overseas that almost all those plots have been thwarted, and countless lives have been saved. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to those men and women, whose work so often goes unreported and unrecognised as they strive to keep us safe.
	Today, however, the threat from terrorism is becoming ever-more complex and diverse. Last year we saw the first terrorist-related deaths in Great Britain since 2005: Fusilier Lee Rigby was brutally murdered by Islamist extremists, and Mohammed Saleem, an 82-year-old Muslim from Birmingham, was stabbed to death by a far-right extremist who then tried to bomb mosques in Walsall, Wolverhampton and Tipton.
	ISIL and its western fighters represent a clear danger. This summer, partly in response to that threat, the independent joint terrorism analysis centre raised the threat level for international terrorism from “substantial” to “severe”. That means that JTAC considers a terrorist attack to be “highly likely”. We face the very serious prospect that British nationals who have fought with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq will seek to radicalise others, or carry out attacks here. We have already seen the appalling murder of four civilians outside the Jewish Museum in Brussels, and the recent attack on the Canadian Parliament was a shocking reminder that we are all targets for these terrorist organisations and those whom they inspire.
	However, ISIL is not the only threat that we face. There are further threats related to Islamist extremism, and there are threats from far-right and Northern Ireland-related terrorism, among others. Just last week, a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the intelligence relating to the murder of Lee Rigby highlighted the real, and potentially very dangerous, capability gaps that exist for the security and intelligence agencies—and when our security and intelligence agencies tell us that the threat that we face is now more dangerous than at any time before or since 9/11, we must act.
	We are engaged in a struggle against terrorism which is being fought on many fronts and in many forms, so our response must be comprehensive, coherent and effective. Since April 2010, in Great Britain, more than 800 people have been arrested for terrorism-related offences, more than 210 have been charged, and more than 140 have been successfully prosecuted. Only last week, Mohammed and Hamza Nawaz became the first Britons to be jailed for terrorist training in Syria, and we have outlawed groups linked to terrorist attacks in Syria, Iraq and Egypt.
	We have protected the budgets for counter-terrorism policing and for the security and intelligence agencies, and, as the Prime Minister announced last week, we
	have made an additional £130 million available over the next two years to help us tackle the increasing terrorist threat. We have replaced control orders, which had been whittled down by the courts, with terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs. We have strengthened the criteria governing the use of the royal prerogative, which allows the Government to cancel British passports to disrupt the travel of people planning to engage in terrorist-related activity overseas. I have used that enhanced power 29 times since April 2013.

Pat McFadden: The Home Secretary referred to the Government decision to replace control orders. One of the decisions she made when she did that was to remove the relocation powers within control orders. That was a decision of choice, not one forced on her by the courts. This Bill reverses that judgment to get rid of relocation powers. Will she now admit that it was a grave error to put the public at increased risk as a result of a political deal within the coalition, and that the fact that she is now legislating to reverse those changes shows that it was a grave error of judgment?

Theresa May: I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, as I have just been outlining, we face today a different threat background from that we faced in recent years. Also, if he looks carefully at the Bill, he will see that we are not simply reintroducing a power of relocation into the TPIMs. We have taken on board the recommendations of the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, who did propose the reintroduction of relocation, but who also proposed a number of other changes to TPIMs, which we are introducing, including the raising of the threshold for the introduction of TPIMs from “reasonable suspicion” to “the balance of probabilities”.
	We have worked hard to make it easier to get rid of undesirable foreign nationals, including terrorists and terror suspects. We have changed the law to make it clear to the courts that article 8 of the European convention on human rights, the right to respect for a family life, is qualified and not an absolute right. We have significantly reformed the Prevent pillar of the counter-terrorism strategy so that it is tackles the ideology behind the threat, and we are working with the internet industry to remove terrorist material hosted in the UK or overseas. Since December last year, the counter-terrorism internet referral unit has secured the removal of over 46,000 items that encouraged or glorified acts of terrorism.
	The emergency legislation that Parliament approved in the summer ensured that two important capabilities, communications data and interception, were not eroded further. Both of these capabilities are absolutely crucial to the investigation of those involved in terrorist activity.

Derek Twigg: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that we now have enough interception powers, or not?

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the power to issue warrants on companies who offer services in the UK but who are based overseas or the holding of whose data is based overseas, we addressed precisely that issue in the legislation introduced in the Data
	Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 that this House put through under emergency powers in the summer.
	So we are taking action at home, but we must also have a comprehensive strategy to defeat these extremists abroad. This involves using all the resources at our disposal: humanitarian efforts to help those displaced by ISIL’s onslaught—efforts that Britain is already leading—and diplomatic efforts to engage the widest possible coalition of countries in the region as part of this international effort.

Julian Lewis: I am glad the Home Secretary just mentioned tackling the terrorists’ narrative. Does she have in mind in that respect not only taking down extremist postings on the internet, for example, but promoting a counter-narrative that exposes the fallacies of the terrorist narrative?

Theresa May: I commend my hon. Friend because he has been resolute in promoting this aspect of dealing with terrorism for some time, and he is absolutely right that it is important to promote that counter-narrative, but I think it is also important to do something else: to take a further step back and look at the whole issue of extremism more generally. That is why we have been very clear, and the work of the Prime Minister’s extremism taskforce is very clear, that we need to introduce an extremism strategy, and the Home Office is currently leading on that. It will be a cross-Government piece of work, but the Home Office is leading on that and the strategy is being developed.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary is right to say that progress has been made during the past year, but will she help me on one point? Where a British citizen has been found to be involved in terrorist-related activities in a foreign country, is it right that we will no longer seek their return to this country, and that they will have to be punished and dealt with abroad?

Theresa May: No. Under the temporary exclusion power in the Bill, when someone who has been involved in terrorist-related activities—that will be considered on a case-by-case basis—returns home to the UK, that will happen on what I would describe as our terms. In other words, that return will be managed so that appropriate action can be taken here in the United Kingdom.

Hazel Blears: The Home Secretary has just said that we need a counter-extremism strategy. May I ask her when that might be available? I remind her that the Department for Communities and Local Government was charged with producing just such a strategy three years ago, but it has not done so. My big concern about the Bill is that it appears to have a gaping hole at its centre. We have a lot about action on individuals who are radicalised, but it has little to say about countering the narrative and countering extremism in general.

Theresa May: As I have indicated, the Home Office is leading on the extremism strategy. We will be working on that, but the right hon. Lady should not expect to see anything published before the end of the year. On the
	wider issue, when we came into power, we made two changes to the way in which Prevent operated, and we did so for a good reason. First, we ensured that Prevent looked not only at violent extremism but at non-violent extremism. Secondly, we saw that in some communities, work being done on community integration under a Prevent heading was being rejected or arousing suspicion. People saw that the work was being done under a counter-terrorism heading and thought that it was about spying on individuals, when it was actually more about community integration. That is why we separated the integration work and gave it to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has been undertaking that work.

Chris Bryant: May I press the Home Secretary about the temporary exclusion orders that she wants to have the power to exact? They would, in effect, result in the exile—albeit short term and temporary—of British citizens, in many cases, to other countries. All history suggests that such action further radicalises people and makes them more dangerous enemies to this country. If we do so without any judicial process, as she advocates in the Bill, is there not a real danger that we will put ourselves in more danger rather than less?

Theresa May: I caution the hon. Gentleman about the terminology that he uses in relation to the power. He has used the term “exile”, but the proposal is not about saying that people cannot return. It is possible for people to return, but they will return on the basis that we have set out in the Bill. Their return will be managed and we will have some control over it.
	In response to an earlier intervention, I said that the change that we were making to the threshold for TPIMs was from “reasonable suspicion” to “the balance of probabilities”. The change is actually from “reasonable belief” to “the balance of probabilities”. I apologise to the House for having given the wrong impression about that.
	Aside from the diplomatic efforts that we must make and the work we must do with those in the region, I have always been clear that we would keep our terrorism laws and capabilities under review. As the House knows, the first and most important duty of Government is the protection and security of their citizens. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear to the House on 1 September, we must ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers that they need to keep us safe. The Bill will strengthen our existing powers so that we can disrupt people’s ability to travel abroad to fight, as well as their ability to return to the country. It will enhance our ability to monitor and control the actions of those in the UK who pose a threat and it will help to combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism.
	Part 1 of the Bill will provide the police and MI5 with two new powers that will significantly enhance their ability to restrict the travel of those suspected of seeking to engage in terrorism-related activity overseas. First, it will provide the police, or a designated Border Force officer under their direction, with the power to seize a passport at ports. That will allow them to disrupt the travel of individuals, and give operational agencies the time to investigate and assess whether long-term disruptive action should be taken, on a case-by-case
	basis. Such action could be taken through, for example, criminal prosecution; the exercise of the royal prerogative to refuse or cancel a passport; a TPIM; deprivation of citizenship; or deportation. The use of this power will be properly safeguarded through a range of measures, including the need for a senior officer’s approval; an additional check by a more senior officer independent of the investigation after 72 hours; an initial retention period of 14 days for the passport; and a court review of the ongoing need to retain a passport, where a judge can allow more time for the police to continue their investigation—up to 30 days. There will also be a statutory code of practice for officers on how to exercise the power, and we intend to publish this code for consultation shortly.
	Secondly, the Bill will create a power to issue temporary exclusion orders, to which I have already referred in response to interventions. These orders can temporarily disrupt the return to the UK of a British citizen suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad, ensuring that when individuals do return, it is done in a manner that we control. This power will cancel an individual’s travel documents and add them to watch lists, notifying the UK if they attempt to travel. Depending on the individual case, it may also require the individual to comply with certain activities once they are back in the UK. There has been a lot of interest in the nature of this power, as we have seen already this afternoon, but I want to reassure the House that it will not render an individual stateless. All those concerned will have the right, which their citizenship guarantees, to return to the UK. But when they do, it will be on our terms—quite possibly in the company of a police officer. Once they are back in the UK, the police will interview them, in order to explore their activities abroad, and can make them subject to further requirements. We are discussing this proposal with other Governments, in order to agree how it will work best in practice. So far these discussions have been constructive, and this proposal is consistent with all our existing international legal obligations.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Home Secretary clarify something so that we can understand the implications of the legislation? What are the circumstances in which she would not grant a permit to return?

Theresa May: These matters will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. The point is to be able to manage the return of individuals who have been involved in terrorist-related activity abroad, and we are discussing how the power would be operated practically with a number of other Governments, as I have said. The point is to ensure that when somebody returns, they do so under control and on our terms.

Menzies Campbell: I confess that I am by no means convinced of the legality of what is being suggested under temporary exclusion orders, which will, no doubt, be known in due course as TEOs, given our enthusiasm for acronyms. What is the position of someone who declines to accept conditions of return and who is not subject to deportation by the country in which they temporarily finds themselves? Are they not de facto stateless in such circumstances?

Theresa May: They are not de facto stateless. It is open to somebody to return, but the proposal is that they would be returning on our basis, under documents that would be issued by the Government, and therefore we would be aware of their return, be able to manage that return and, as I have indicated, take appropriate action when they return to the UK. So this is not rendering people stateless.

Dominic Grieve: I understand the system that my right hon. Friend is putting in place of managed return, but what is not clear in the Bill is the system that will be present to enable that managed return requirement to be challenged. I wonder whether she can help the House on that point. It seems to me that there must be a mechanism by which a person who is told that they have to return in a particular way can challenge it on their return to this country, and do so expeditiously, if it is not to be an unwarranted interference with their rights.

Theresa May: There will be a form of challenge available to an individual under judicial review. We will also have to notify the individual that action is being taken against them, so that they are aware that the measure is being put in place.

Yasmin Qureshi: On a point that was made earlier, if an individual has the right to challenge how they are managed—I think the right hon. Lady said that it would be by means of judicial review—can we ensure that they have legal aid to do that?

Theresa May: As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have made a number of changes to legal aid, and we are looking at the position in relation to that particular issue on these new measures.

Kenneth Clarke: The Home Secretary is being very reasonable to a lot of Members who wish to get in. Let us take the position of someone subject to one of these orders who finds themselves in a friendly country such as Turkey or France. If the Governments of Turkey or France request the British Government to take that person back into the United Kingdom without going through the deportation process, is it not a fact that we would really feel under an obligation to take back such a person?

Theresa May: If someone were in a country such as France or Turkey, and the Government of that country requested us to take back the individual, it would be possible in those circumstances for us to act in exactly the way that we are proposing in the Bill. I am talking about managing the return of that individual. For example, they might be accompanied by a police officer who would go out to bring them back into the UK, and various actions might be taken on their return. There might be an interview with the police, the introduction of a TPIM notice or a requirement to go on a Prevent programme. Those sorts of measures could be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Richard Fuller: rose—

Theresa May: I will give way one further time, and then I will move on to part 2 of the Bill.

Richard Fuller: As someone who wants to protect civil liberties in this country, may I warmly welcome this measure from the Home Secretary? There are many in my constituency who would like to see people in this situation given a one-way ticket and not allowed back into the country, so she has found a balance. Does she not think that one benefit of this piece of legislation is that it empowers mothers and fathers of impressionable teenagers to have a clear conversation with them about the consequences of their mind being warped by people on the internet trying to induce them to acts of terrorism overseas?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. That is part of the process of trying to disrupt people from travelling to Syria and Iraq or from being active with terrorist groups. We want to get the message across to young people that if they want to help people in Syria there are better ways of doing it than crossing into the country. They can, for example, assist the humanitarian efforts in the UK to support refugees from Syria, which can be of genuine support to people in Syria. In recent weeks, I have met some very impressive women from Muslim communities around the United Kingdom. They have been working with young people and their families, developing a number of programmes, which relay the message, “Don’t go to Syria.” The #MakingAStand campaign and the work that is being done by the charity FAST are about helping families to ensure that young people get the message that they should not be going over to Syria.
	Part 2 of the Bill relates to TPIMs. It gives effect to the recommendations of David Anderson, QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, in his most recent report on TPIMs. The changes to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 will provide the police and MI5 with valuable new capabilities. That includes allowing TPIM subjects to be relocated to different parts of the country. We will also be raising the legal test for imposing a TPIM—

Hazel Blears: rose—

Theresa May: May I make a little more progress and then give way to the right hon. Lady?

Hazel Blears: It is on that point.

Theresa May: Will the right hon. Lady at least allow me to get to the end of the paragraph before I give way?
	The changes to the TPIM Act include allowing TPIM subjects to be relocated, but we will also be raising the legal test, as I said earlier in response to an intervention, and narrowing the definition of terrorism-related activity in relation to this power. David Anderson is clear that there is no need to turn the clock back to the previous Government’s control orders regime, and I agree with him.

Hazel Blears: I have a simple inquiry, as I genuinely do not understand why the clause as drafted states that if someone is going to be relocated 190 miles away that can be imposed by the Home Secretary, but if they are
	going to be relocated 205 miles away it has to be a matter for agreement. I do not understand the logic in that provision at all.

Theresa May: We looked carefully at the proposals made by David Anderson and I believe he suggested that there should be a geographical limit for the relocation.
	Part 3 seeks to amend the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 to help us identify who in the real world is using an internet protocol, or IP, address at a given point in time. Changes in how service providers build their networks, made to enable them to cope with the increased demand for their services, mean that these identifiers are often shared between a great number of users. Companies generally have no business purpose for keeping a log of who used each address at a given point in time, which means that it is often not possible for law enforcement agencies to identify who sent or received a message. The provisions will allow us to require the key UK companies to retain the necessary information to enable them to identify the users of their services. That will provide vital additional capability to law enforcement in investigating a broad range of serious crime, including terrorism.
	The Bill deals only with limited fields of data relating to a specific technical problem. Without the full package of data types included in the draft Communications Data Bill, published in 2012, there will still be gaps in law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ capabilities. For example, the child exploitation and online protection command in the NCA might still struggle to identify those who have been accessing servers hosting illegal images of child sex abuse. That is an issue to which Parliament will need to return after the general election, subject to the outcome of David Anderson’s statutory review of investigatory powers.
	Part 4 contains measures on aviation, shipping and rail security. They will help us to stop terrorists and those involved or suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activity from travelling to and from the UK, and will mitigate the threat of an attack on those transport services. The proposals cover three main areas. First, they will require carriers to be able to receive instructions not to carry a specific passenger in a way that is compatible with our border systems. Secondly, they will establish a new framework for authority to carry schemes, commonly known as our no-fly arrangements, that will extend to new categories of British nationals and apply to outbound travel. Finally, they will enhance our ability to require carriers operating to the UK to undertake specified security measures, including the screening of passengers. Carriers that will not comply with security requirements will not be allowed to operate into the UK.

Jim Cunningham: I am puzzled that the Home Secretary has just said that carriers will be required to provide some sort of security screening. How will they do that? Would that not involve additional cost?

Theresa May: Obviously, carriers in most parts of the world are already required to carry out some security screening. From time to time, we say that if someone is going to fly into the United Kingdom we wish them to adopt additional methods of security screening. At the moment, this is done on a voluntary basis, but the Bill
	takes that and puts it into statute, which will enable us to stop someone from flying into the UK if they do not adopt the security procedures.
	Part 5 addresses the issue of those at serious risk of succumbing to radicalisation and terrorism. We propose a new statutory duty on certain bodies, including local authorities, the police, prisons, probation services, schools, colleges and universities, including in the private sector, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. That will ensure that Prevent strategy activity is consistent across the country and in all those bodies whose staff work on the front line with those at risk from radicalisation. The detail of how the duty should be fulfilled will be set out in statutory guidance, which we will publish shortly.
	I hope that the House will find it helpful if I take the opportunity to clarify one specific issue that the guidance will address, which is the need to create an appropriate and sensible balance between the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and the existing duty on universities to promote freedom of speech. I believe that our universities, with their commitment to free speech and the advancement of knowledge, represent one of our most important safeguards against extremist views and ideologies. There is no contradiction between promoting freedom of speech and taking account of the interests and well-being of students, staff and the wider community. That is already subject to guidance issued by both Universities UK and the National Union of Students. We must ensure that poisonous, divisive ideologies are not allowed to promulgate.

Yasmin Qureshi: The right hon. Lady mentioned universities and other institutions being sent statutory guidelines on Prevent. Why do the guidelines have to be in statutory format? Why cannot they just be sent, knowing that any responsible institution will follow them without their having to have legal force behind them?

Theresa May: The purpose of putting Prevent on a statutory basis is twofold. First, the statutory duty will now relate to a number of front-line institutions, as I have said, such as local authorities and universities. There is already some guidance that Universities UK and the National Union of Students apply to universities, as I have indicated. However, I believe it is important to ensure that there is that statutory duty on bodies such as universities, and the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make a direction to one of the bodies covered by that power if they are failing to exercise their statutory duty.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Home Secretary clarify what she means by that? Could she envisage a Home Secretary making a direction in order to tell a university or institution not to allow somebody to speak?

Theresa May: That is not the intention of the duty; its intention is to ensure that the university or institution has in place a policy on matters relating to extremism. For example, they might have a general policy that they apply in relation to extremist speakers coming to their institution. The purpose of the power to make a direction in the Bill is to ensure that they are doing something like that, taking their statutory duty seriously. It is for
	those institutions that are failing to comply with the statutory duty that that particular power has been put into the Bill.
	Alongside that statutory requirement in relation to Prevent, the Bill will also provide a statutory basis for the existing programmes for those at risk of being drawn into terrorism, known as Channel in England and Wales. That will enshrine existing good practice and help to ensure consistency across all local areas.

Pete Wishart: As the Home Secretary knows, the Prevent strategy falls within the competence of Scottish Ministers under the devolved settlement. Scottish Ministers have their own priorities and agenda when it comes to delivering those measures in Scotland. I know that there have been discussions with Home Office Ministers about excluding Scotland from that power, so that we can have the opportunity to consult our public bodies properly. Is she open to that type of approach, so that Scotland could be included in the measures later, when we have had an opportunity to work out what it would actually mean for our public bodies and their responsibilities?

Theresa May: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that counter-terrorism is obviously a reserved matter. He might like to know that his point relates to the very next paragraph I was about to read. It is the Government’s hope and intention that these provisions should also apply to Scotland. We are consulting Ministers in the devolved Administrations about the practical implications of our proposals, and obviously those discussions will continue with the Scottish Government.
	Part 6 includes amendments to two provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000. First, it will put it beyond doubt that UK insurance firms cannot reimburse payments made to terrorists in response to ransom demands. To put that in context, the UN estimates that ransom payments raised up to £28 million for ISIL over the past 12 months alone. We need to avoid any uncertainty on that issue.
	Secondly, the Bill will clarify our counter-terrorism port and border controls in relation to where goods may be examined and the examination of goods comprising items of post. That is an important part of our counter-terrorism port and border controls and the disruption of those engaged in terrorism. We must ensure that the law is clear and that the police can fulfil their duties.
	The powers in the Bill are essential, but they should be used only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. Their use will be stringently safeguarded, including through suitable legal thresholds and judicial oversight of certain measures. Part 7 of the Bill will also allow for the creation of a privacy and civil liberties board to support the important work of David Anderson, QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
	Finally, the Bill includes a provision to ensure that challenges to refusals of applications for British overseas territories citizenship can be heard before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, so that sensitive material can be protected. This simply addresses an anomaly in existing legislation.
	I have stressed the urgency and importance of this legislation. This is not a knee-jerk reaction but a considered, targeted approach that ensure that our law enforcement
	and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to respond to the heightened threat to our national security. Substantial work, in consultation with the police and MI5, has gone into drafting the clauses. Where the measures impact on those in the private sector or civil society, we have consulted with the relevant bodies.
	I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for engaging in constructive discussions on the timetable for the Bill.

Michael Ellis: I commend the Home Secretary for the measures in this Bill, which are reasonable measures that accord with our international obligations. Does she agree, though, that there is a gap as regards communications data? I hope that we will be able to include that area in future measures as soon as possible, because although the measures she is announcing go some way towards improving national security and meet our national obligations, we must address that gap.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right that we continue to have a gap in relation to communications data. Although the Bill introduces the question of IP address resolution, it will still be the case that data that previously would have been available to our law enforcement agencies and security services will not be available in future. I am very clear that Parliament will have to return to this issue after the general election.
	The need to introduce this legislation today is pressing, but I do not propose to rush it through Parliament in a matter of days or weeks. Parliament must have adequate time to consider these measures. Expediting the Bill’s passage over the next couple of months will enable that to take place, while allowing us to seek approval for crucial secondary legislation prior to the election. This will ensure that proper scrutiny can take place, and that the police and agencies are able to use these new capabilities without undue delay.
	We are in the midst of a generational struggle against a deadly terrorist ideology. That is why we have brought this legislation forward at the earliest opportunity, and we will seek its swift passage through Parliament. We must ensure that the police and the security and intelligence agencies have all the legal powers and capabilities they need to stop people travelling to fight in Syria and Iraq, to tackle this terrorist threat, and to protect all the law-abiding citizens who believe in keeping the UK an open, free and tolerant nation. That is what this Bill will do, and I commend it to the House.

Yvette Cooper: As the Home Secretary said, it is the responsibility of Government to protect the liberty and the security of our people, to protect our communities from extremism and terror threats, and to protect our liberty and our democratic values so that the terrorists and extremists do not win. At a time when the terror threat has grown, more action is needed to make sure that the police, the security agencies and other organisations have the powers that they need to protect us, but also to make sure that we have sensible safeguards in place—the right kinds of checks and balances to prevent abuse.
	We will support this Bill because it responds to new and changing threats and also corrects some past mistakes, but we believe that amendments are needed in some areas to make the measures more effective or to ensure that sufficient checks and balances are in place to prevent powers being abused and discredited, thus undermining the fight against extremism.
	Last week’s Intelligence and Security Committee report on the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby provided stark evidence of the serious challenges that our security services and police face in keeping us safe. It is a 24 hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year job, and every decision is loaded with doubt. Today we should pay tribute to their quiet stoicism and heroism. This year alone, the Metropolitan police has made 270 arrests following counter-terrorism investigations. Along with our agencies, it has disrupted several attack plots, including plots against those whose very job it is to protect our communities.
	That job of protecting us all from terrorism has become increasingly difficult in the face of the growth of ISIL and its barbarous brand of terror. As the Home Secretary said, the Government believe that about 500 people have travelled to Syria, with about half having already returned to the UK. However, this problem is not unique to Britain. The United Nations estimates that foreign fighters from 80 countries may be in the region, mainly fighting for ISIL. France estimates that 900 French nationals are fighting in the regions. Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Finland have all seen significant numbers of their citizens go to fight. Many countries across Europe are introducing new policies and legislation to address the problem and we should work with them as they do so. We have also seen, through the awful propaganda videos, what people have become involved in, including beheadings, kidnaps and brutalising whole communities in Syria and Iraq.
	Of course, a foreign policy response is required to defeat ISIL in the region and to strengthen the Governments who will have to fight them. A humanitarian response is also needed to try to save the lives of communities in the path—or, worse, the wake—of ISIL’s advance. The Home Secretary’s policy of taking only 90 of the most vulnerable refugees from Syria, in parallel with the UN programme, is shameful. Other countries are doing far more, and she was urged to do far more as well. She has the opportunity at next week’s Geneva conference to change her approach, and I urge her to do so.

Julian Smith: Does not the right hon. Lady accept that Britain is one of the leading donors to providing humanitarian relief to Syria, and will she not celebrate that fact?

Yvette Cooper: The Government have rightly provided a very strong response in the region and support for those who are fleeing the conflict. Members on both sides of the House have supported the Government in doing so and call on them to continue to do so. Twelve months ago, however, Members on both sides of the House also called on the Government to do more to help the most vulnerable Syrian refugees who struggle to cope in the camps, and I do not believe that the Government are doing what they undertook to do 12 months ago.

Chris Bryant: There are now literally millions of refugees in Lebanon and children are being born there who are effectively stateless. That is not a recipe for a peaceful middle east, is it?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that the huge stresses and strains in the region will have long-term consequences. That is why we need to do our bit with our humanitarian response and recognise the long-term security consequences both in the region and here in Britain.
	Let me turn to the Bill’s measures and how they respond to the challenge we face. More needs to be done to prevent young people from being radicalised or drawn into extremism in the first place. The Home Secretary has said that she wants to strengthen the Prevent programme, which we welcome, and we hope that putting it on a statutory footing will help do that. She will know, however, that getting the Prevent programme right is not simply about legislation. The programme has been narrowed over the past few years, which has led to criticism from the Intelligence and Security Committee, which noted in its report last week
	“the relatively low priority (and funding) given to Prevent in the CONTEST programme as a whole”.
	The Committee concluded:
	“The scale of the problem”—
	by which it meant the number of people travelling—
	“indicates that the Government’s counter-radicalisation programmes are not working.”
	We know that Prevent support for local community programmes has dropped from £17 million to less than £3 million over the past few years. Although the Home Secretary talked about the promotion of a counter-narrative, the evidence suggests that far less work is being done now than a few years ago to promote counter-narratives within communities.

Hazel Blears: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, although many of the Bill’s provisions are very welcome, including those relating to the panels and putting things on a statutory footing, it is couched in terms of individuals? It mentions individual referrals and individual plans, yet, in essence, challenging the narrative is a collective responsibility for all of us, not simply individuals.

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is right. She has great expertise in looking at the work of the Prevent programme, particularly the community and local work that was being done. This is a concern. The Government originally cut the number of local authorities receiving funding through the Prevent programme from 90 to 23. They have subsequently reinstated some of them, but only four out of the 30 councils that were tasked with delivering Prevent submitted evaluations to the Office for Security and Counter-terrorism last year.
	The Home Secretary has talked many times—we have pressed her on this—about the fact that she has passed some of the Prevent work to the Department for Communities and Local Government, but it is of considerable concern to us that there is no evidence that it is doing significant work on it. The community-led programme to counter radicalisation simply does not seem to be strong or effective enough. Much more
	could be done even without legislation to improve the Prevent programme, and if the Government do not do their bit, all the legislation in the world will not make the programme effective.

Keith Vaz: Evidence suggests that the biggest pressure on young jihadists comes not from organisations, but from peer groups. What is missing is that we have not yet got into the DNA of trying to deal with peer group pressure. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that we should direct more of the funding to such community organisations?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. We should be honest about the fact that we do not know the perfect answers. This is a difficult area, and different things need to be tried. However, the current programmes are not addressing two significant challenges: peer group recruitment, which is clearly taking place in many areas, and social media, through which recruitment and radicalisation are taking place. Much more should be done to address those challenges, and community-led programmes might be considerably more effective than police-led or Government-led programmes in achieving results.

Julian Lewis: I applaud the constructive tone of the right hon. Lady’s remarks so far. May I take her back to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)? Most of what is being discussed is still at community or even individual level, whereas we believe that something needs to be done at national level that is comparable to the efforts made to counter Nazism in the second world war and to counter communism during the cold war.

Yvette Cooper: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more needs to be done at the national level. The Bill introduces a statutory duty on a series of organisations to do more, and those organisations should certainly work in partnership to prevent people from being drawn into extremism and terrorist activity. Given the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) about some of the gaps, particularly in relation to the Department for Communities and Local Government, there is a question about whether the duty should in fact extend to that Department, rather than simply to local organisations across the country.
	In Committee, we will probe the Home Secretary further on what she intends to do with her power of direction. That is still unclear from the Bill, and it is unclear what she envisages putting in guidance. She said that guidance would be published alongside the Bill, but we have not yet seen it. I do not know whether it has already been published.

Theresa May: I have listened very carefully to what the shadow Home Secretary is saying about the Prevent programme. As I said earlier, one of the first things that the Government did when we considered the programme was to decide that it should no longer look simply at violent extremism, but at non-violent extremism as well. Does what she is saying mean that she agrees with the step that we took, and does she therefore accept that the previous Labour Government got it wrong in concentrating the Prevent programme only on violent extremism?

Yvette Cooper: It is absolutely right to look at both violent and non-violent extremism. If the Home Secretary has listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles has said on the issue over many years, she will know that the previous Government’s work was about looking at both violent and non-violent extremism and at the process of radicalisation from beginning to end. The whole point of providing counter-narratives is to tackle non-violent as well as violent extremism.
	It is unfortunate that the Home Secretary chose to narrow the programme in the way she did and handed over community-led Prevent programmes to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which simply did not pursue them. The police have done very good work, but narrowing Prevent to just a police-led programme means that it has simply not been effective, and there have also been considerable gaps in the programme.
	On the Secretary of State’s power of direction, there will questions not only about how she intends to use it, but about what safeguards will ensure that she does use that power inappropriately.
	The next challenge is how to deal with those who have become radicalised and pose a serious threat. Wherever possible, those people should clearly be prosecuted and passed through our courts. We know that there are difficult cases in which that is not possible, but people still pose a serious terror threat. It will come as no surprise to the Home Secretary or the House that we welcome the return of the relocation powers. She told the House in 2011 that the removal of the relocation power was a deliberate and desirable part of TPIMs. She said:
	“Forcible relocation will be ended”,
	and individuals
	“will have greater freedom to associate.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 308.]
	The Home Secretary defended her decision on relocation after Ibrahim Magag absconded in a black cab on Boxing day in 2012 once his relocation order had been revoked. She said at the time:
	“I am confident in the TPIM package that was available”.—[Official Report, 8 January 2013; Vol. 566, c. 165.]
	She also defended her decision in 2013, when Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed fled in a burqa after his relocation order was revoked.
	No powers are perfect, but it is significant that no terror suspect has absconded under a relocation order. The Home Secretary has said in the House that she made those changes because control orders were under threat in the courts and TPIMs were not. In fact, both the former and current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have made it clear that relocation orders were never under threat in the courts. It was a policy decision that was taken by the Home Secretary and the coalition.
	The truth is that TPIMs have not worked. Despite the increased terror threat, only one is in place at the moment and it relates to someone who has left prison. TPIMs simply do not contain enough powers to be useful for the agencies or the police, or to be worth the extra effort involved. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, concluded in his review:
	“A power to relocate subjects away from their home areas would be of real practical assistance…in distancing subjects from their associates and reducing the risk of abscond. It would also facilitate monitoring, save money and could help restore faith in a TPIM regime that has withered on the vine.”
	It is not because of the increased terror threat that the regime has withered on the vine; it is because the TPIM regime simply was not effective without the relocation orders that it needed.

Pete Wishart: I have not heard from either Front Bencher the two words “civil liberties”. Is it the right hon. Lady’s view that the measures we are discussing today will tilt the balance between civil liberties and security too far towards security and compromise some very important civil liberties?

Yvette Cooper: In fact, I talked about the importance of protecting both liberty and security when I opened my remarks. We need both in a democracy and it is the responsibility of Government to protect both. On TPIMs, I think that the Government were wrong to remove the relocation powers. They are important and effective, and it has been recommended that they should be restored by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, whose judgment has proved to be balanced and sensible on a series of issues. There are other areas where additional safeguards are needed, and I will come to them shortly.

Richard Fuller: The right hon. Lady will understand that there is some sensitivity on this issue, given the rather poor record of the last Labour Government on protecting civil liberties. For example, we had 90 days’ detention without trial and the imprisonment of children for immigration purposes only. Does she at least agree with the Home Secretary’s move to raise the threshold for when relocation can be imposed from reasonable belief to the balance of probabilities?

Yvette Cooper: I do support the proposals, because they came out of David Anderson’s report about changes to the TPIMs regime. He looked at the evidence and came up with sensible recommendations. However, I warn the hon. Gentleman against playing party politics on this issue, because that is what got the coalition into trouble in the first place. The reason the coalition removed relocation orders was that it wanted to make party political points, rather than look at the evidence. That is why it has had to do a U-turn: it has finally had to look at the evidence. I caution him about doing the same again.

Pat McFadden: The Home Secretary said in her speech both that we were engaged in a generational struggle and that the security situation had changed markedly in the past couple of years, justifying the U-turn that part 2 of the Bill represents. Are those statements not contradictory? It is true that we are engaged in a generational struggle. It would be better for the Home Secretary to apologise for the grave error of judgment that put the public at risk than to pretend that the situation has changed radically.

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is right that the threat level is the same now as it was when the Home Secretary came into office. There have been ongoing
	threats to our security and liberty for many years, and it was not increased threat that led either Ibrahim Magag or Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed to abscond when their relocation orders were revoked. It was the lack of a relocation order and the weakening of the counter-terrorism powers.
	Counter-terrorism policy is always difficult. There will always be things that Governments find challenging, and there will be times when they get the balance wrong. However, we should look at the evidence together. The Home Secretary and the Government failed to look at the evidence about relocation powers, and they failed to listen to the advice of the security experts. They have had to do so now not because the security threat has changed but because TPIMs simply did not work. It is right that they should be strengthened now and that powers should be restored.
	There are two other puzzling things about the Home Secretary’s measures on TPIMs. The first relates to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles made about the 200-mile limit: what is the difference between someone being 205 miles away and someone being 195 miles away? More puzzling is the measure that the Government are introducing to prevent people on a TPIM from having access to a firearm. That seems extremely sensible—we would not want any terror suspect to have access to a firearm—but how could any of them have had such access before? That raises the question whether either the gun licensing regime or the TPIMs regime is considerably weaker than we thought. We hope that some clarity will be provided in Committee on why that measure is needed. We will clearly support it, but it is a puzzle that existing powers are not strong enough to ensure that that sensible restriction is in place.
	The next challenge is how to deal with the new and growing problem of British citizens leaving to join the conflict overseas, where they may become involved in awful crimes and barbarism, be further radicalised and become a threat to this country. We need new measures to prevent people from going. Removing people’s passports through the royal prerogative is understandably not a swift process, and sometimes faster action is needed. If troubled parents ring the police because they are worried that a son or daughter has left to join ISIS and taken their passport with them, the police need to be able to move quickly. We therefore agree that temporary powers are needed.
	The lack of judicial oversight is a concern. As the Bill stands, the police will be able to seize a passport based on their own judgment of reasonable suspicion, and there will be no judicial oversight for 14 days. Even then, a magistrate will look only at whether the police are continuing to investigate, not at whether there was reasonable suspicion in the first place. The power to seize a passport is important, but that means that it is also important that it is not abused.

Khalid Mahmood: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the apprehension of passports requires proper border agency staffing, which the Home Secretary has cut by 50%? She is now proposing to cut the police by 30,000 in the next period, which will make it extremely difficult for any of the actions set out in the Bill to be carried out.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. There are no proper exit checks in place across the country, and we need the staff to be able to do them. That is why we have made proposals for 1,000 additional border staff, which is the right thing to do to ensure that such checks are in place. There should also be checks and balances on the power to seize passports. It is important and necessary, but there should be further safeguards to ensure that it cannot be abused.
	The next important measure in the Bill is temporary exclusion orders. There is a serious problem for the police and the agencies dealing with those returning from conflict, who may have committed awful crimes abroad and might pose a threat in Britain. More needs to be done to address that threat, which was why we called for TPIM powers to be strengthened and for the Channel programme to be made compulsory. There should be requirements on people returning, and I understand the Home Secretary wanting to manage people’s return, but it is still unclear exactly what the Government want to achieve through the new powers.
	The Prime Minister has said:
	“We are clear in principle that what we need is a targeted, discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 26.]
	However, it seems that that is not what the power in the Bill will do. If someone is served with an order and the host country decides to deport them anyway, Britain will co-operate and they will be returned. There is no power to exclude them. If they apply for a permit to return, the Home Secretary can refuse to grant one only if the suspect does not turn up to an interview. Presumably, that is an interview in the foreign country; otherwise, they would already be home. The suspect does not have to co-operate with the interview, only to turn up.
	When I asked the Home Secretary under what circumstances she would refuse to grant a permit to return, she did not give a clear answer and gave the impression that even if the suspect did not turn up to the interview, a permit to return might still be granted. It appears, then, that there is still no power to exclude them, so this is not the power that the Prime Minister said he would introduce. It seems to be described as a temporary exclusion order simply to give the Prime Minister the headline that he wanted.

David Winnick: Temporary exclusion orders may be necessary—there are obvious dangers in people coming back, having been indoctrinated and wanting to commit crimes. There may be a strong possibility of that, but surely judicial oversight is needed so that if the Home Secretary takes such powers, they can be challenged in court. I trust that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity in Committee to table appropriate amendments.

Yvette Cooper: More judicial oversight is needed in this area and we will certainly table amendments. It is also important to clarify what the powers are intended to achieve. It appears that they are not intended to achieve exclusion at all and have a very different intention.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend is right to raise such queries. May I add two others that she might want to put to the Home Secretary? The first is what constitutes
	serving notice on somebody. Presumably this happens in another country. How is that notice to be served? How will somebody be deemed to be suitable to have that notice served on them? Secondly, at what point does the exclusion start? Is it before they get on an aeroplane or a boat to come to this country, or is it at they moment they arrive in this country? Once they are in this country, what happens to them? Are they effectively deported?

Yvette Cooper: Again, my hon. Friend raises important questions. The independent reviewer said that the policy was an announcement in search of a policy. It started with an announcement by the Prime Minister at a press conference. To be fair to the Home Office, it probably worked hard to try to turn it into some kind of sensible measure that might achieve something as part of the Government’s counter-terror policy but that could still have the label “temporary exclusion order” attached to it in order to keep the Prime Minister happy. The House needs to understand exactly what the Home Secretary’s intention now is. This is not a hugely responsible way to make counter-terror policy or for us all to be able to understand whether it gets the balance right between the powers and measures that are needed and the safeguards that are needed as well.
	The Home Secretary has described this as a policy to manage return. The intention behind that is sensible, requiring people to co-operate with the police and security agencies and to attend Channel interviews if they have been involved with ISIL or have been in the region. That is important, but there are some practical questions about how the policy will work—first about co-operation with other countries, secondly about bureaucracy in the process, and thirdly about the safeguards and the judicial oversight.
	What happens if a country does not want to co-operate? Have countries such as Turkey said that they will co-operate? Will they immediately deport people? Will they detain people at the airport? How will those orders be served and what will the response be?

Edward Garnier: What are the right hon. Lady’s suggestions, therefore?

Yvette Cooper: There are some changes that could be made and we will table amendments to that effect, but we need to know from the Home Secretary what discussions have taken place with other countries. It is very hard for anybody in the House to propose appropriate amendments without knowing what discussions have taken place and what other countries intend to do in response. Will the measure work because other countries will co-operate, or will it struggle because other countries have said they will not co-operate?

Edward Garnier: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he can tell me whether Turkey, for example, has said that it will co-operate.

Edward Garnier: It may well be that the right hon. Lady is making a good argument, but I cannot judge that until she tells me what her position is.

Yvette Cooper: In which case perhaps the hon. and learned Member should stop intervening and let me get on and speak about the amendments.

Jim Cunningham: One thing that has bedevilled these debates is that neither the Home Secretary nor anyone else has made it clear which countries are prepared to co-operate, particularly with Turkey which sends different signals.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and by the time the Bill gets to Committee, the House needs to know whether there have been discussions with other countries, how those countries will respond, and what the level of co-operation will be.
	My second question concerns what happens if the Home Secretary wants someone to return and be required to co-operate with the Channel programme, but does not want to delay their return. At the moment it appears that the order must be served and a permit applied for, and then the Home Secretary has to issue a permit, potentially introducing delays during which someone might abscond again. Is there any way to place requirements on someone once they return, without having to go through that further bureaucratic process at the airport? It appears from the Bill as though the Home Secretary cannot compel people to go to appointments at the police station or to comply with the Channel programme unless she also introduces bureaucratic delays with the application for a permit at the foreign airport. It would be helpful to know whether she has the power to allow someone to swiftly board the plane and also to introduce those powers.
	What are the safeguards to prevent abuse? At the moment, temporary exclusion orders can be imposed by the Home Secretary on the basis of reasonable suspicion. That could include ongoing requirements for someone to attend regular appointments, or perhaps even to report daily to the police for two years after their return. There is no ability to appeal when someone returns—for instance, if they have been involved in humanitarian work in the region—and if the orders are breached, the penalty is the same as for breaching a TPIM. I think the Home Secretary should consider that further, because for TPIMs a judicial process rightly has to be satisfied. For a temporary exclusion order there is no judicial oversight, yet penalties for breach are the same. We believe that the powers need to be debated in detail in Committee to ensure they are effective, cannot be abused, and involve appropriate oversight. In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), we will be tabling amendments on judicial oversight.
	Finally, I wish to raise an issue familiar to the House which was included in the original Communications Data Bill. That Bill was far too widely drawn, but there was wide consensus on the need for action on IP addresses, which had the support of the Joint Committee that considered the Bill. IP addresses are created and assigned automatically. Some companies retain those data, but some do not or routinely allocate multiple IP addresses to lots of people. That means that if an abusive image of a child has been sent from a particular IP address, agencies can struggle to discover who that address belongs to or where the child may be being abused. The Opposition support the principle behind that change,
	although I am sure it will need detailed scrutiny to ensure that the legislation does what is intended. We must be clear that simply having the technical and legal capability to do things is not sufficient as long as, for example, there are huge delays in the National Crime Agency investigating child abuse cases and passing them on to local forces.

Julian Smith: I may have interrupted the right hon. Lady at the wrong point, but I would be grateful if she could outline Labour’s view on communications data more generally, and say what measures she would support as we introduce further changes.

Yvette Cooper: We said some time ago that we would support measures on IP addresses, and that the whole area needs to be looked at by the independent reviewer. That is why we called for an overall review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by David Anderson, and insisted on that being included in the Bill. It is right to allow him to provide expert evidence on the way that the police and agencies are having difficulty keeping up with changing technology, and on the scale of the additional safeguards needed. In all those areas, strong powers may be needed in some cases, but we also need strong checks and balances and proper oversight. I think there are areas where sufficient checks and balances are not currently in place.
	More action is needed to deal with the serious threats resulting from the conflict in Syria and the rise of ISIL. That means preventing radicalisation and dealing with people who pose a threat. It means having the right foreign policy and action in the region, but it also means ensuring that our laws at home are effective and proportionate, and that they cannot be abused, so that we do not let extremists threaten our democratic values, the protection of our historical liberties and our security.
	At the beginning of this Parliament, the Home Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister were inclined to make grand, sweeping statements attacking previous Labour Governments, and to make strong party political claims about our counter-terror policy, be they about the Prevent strategy or control orders. The Opposition warned the Home Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister that that was not wise, because counter-terror policy is not easy; it requires care and thought. All Governments will get things wrong, and all parties will get things wrong. The Opposition will therefore work with the Home Secretary. We agree with her on some things, but we do not think she has got it right yet on others, and amendments are needed. Parliament as a whole must be thoughtful and responsible, because our liberty and security depend on each other. We need both in a democracy to keep us safe.

Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to be able to participate in the debate. At the outset, I should say that I welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introducing the Bill. I entirely agree with her that the House needs continuously to address the challenge and threat that terrorism poses to us. Some people think that the threat is exaggerated, but from my time as Attorney-General—I had to see some of the background briefings, and sometimes to consider cases relating to individuals who had gone abroad,
	particularly to Syria and Iraq—I have no doubt that she is absolutely accurate in her description of the real threat they pose to us.
	With that in mind, I do not intend to take up much of the House’s time on my broad welcome of the legislation. Although the House will want to look in detail at the proposals on TPIMs and data retention, which is undoubtedly important, and the measures on preventing people from being drawn into terrorism, there is no doubt in my mind that they make good sense.
	However, I hope to take a little of the House’s time this evening to talk about chapter 2, on temporary exclusion from the United Kingdom; I have flagged up my concerns on how the House should best proceed on that in a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is a fundamental principle of the common law in this country that an individual, unconvicted—the presumption of innocence applies—should be free to reside in his own land. The principle of exile, as a judicial or even an administrative tool, has not been tolerated in this country since the late 17th century. It is certainly no part of our criminal justice panoply, and certainly not part of administrative provisions or powers given to the state.

Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: I shall make a bit of progress.
	Therefore, when we consider the question of temporary exclusion from the United Kingdom, we must bear it in mind that what is proposed, even if exclusion is on a temporary basis, is a draconian and unusual power being taken by the state. The point has been made that the proposal could be in breach of our international legal obligations by rendering a person stateless.
	That is a separate consideration, and I know the Home Secretary has had it in mind in introducing the legislation, but I come back to the more fundamental point about the common law right. The point is often well made that as Parliament is sovereign, it can exclude the common law whenever it likes, but the fact is that the more fundamental the common law principle, the more careful we should be before excluding it. I simply say to my right hon. Friend that this is one of those common law rights that I regard as being of a fundamental character.
	If I move on from that to consider what is proposed, I am pleased to note that it seems to me that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given careful consideration to the issue. The temporary exclusion orders, which she has put forward, appear to be of a character such that she accepts she must issue a permit within a reasonable time after a person makes the application. The process therefore is—in my view, correctly —one of managed return: a return that provides reassurance that the state, which has to protect citizens here, knows of the returnee coming back to this country and, furthermore, provides opportunities, if necessary for the state to impose conditions on that individual after they have come back.
	I have to say to my right hon. Friend that what has intrigued me in reading the Bill is the relationship between that and the TPIMs the Bill seeks to enhance in a number of perfectly legitimate and sensible ways.
	As she will know, the TPIM is also a serious interference in the liberty of the subject, and is therefore provided with a number of safeguards and protections in how it operates. The principal one is that although the Home Secretary instigates the application for a TPIM, the process has to be initiated through the High Court. There are some circumstances, however, in which that can be bypassed in the event of an emergency, and permission sought retrospectively.
	The obligations after return to the United Kingdom, in clause 8, appear—the Minister may be able to help us when he comes to sum up—to be in large measure identical to those one might expect a TPIM to include, although there may be some differences, in which case it would be useful to have some clarification. Of course, the principal difference, as far as I can make out, is that this process does not have to be instigated by an application to the High Court; it is simply done on the basis of the Home Secretary concluding that she has reasonable grounds for requiring this process to take place.
	I have to say to my right hon. Friend that I will be interested, in the course of the debate during the passage of the Bill, to understand why we should introduce two separate regimes of this kind. We know that, in respect of TPIMs, she has been broadly satisfied with the way they have been operating, even though she wishes to expand some of their scope. That is, I think, supported on both sides of the House. After all, if an individual is located in Iraq or Syria, or has crossed the border into Turkey and has indicated a desire to return when my right hon. Friend has removed his or her passport, the one thing one probably has as a result of this legislation is a short period of leisure—the reasonable period where the application is being made—for, if necessary, the process of a TPIM, or a TPIM which applies to a returnee, to be instigated through the High Court. I am a little mystified as to why we should simply resort to a judicial review process, which, although I accept it may comply with our international legal obligations and also the principles of due process, is nevertheless by its nature likely to be more ponderous and cumbersome, and would not allow the High Court to be seized of this matter at an earlier opportunity.
	I say to my right hon. Friend that this is a matter on which we need to spend a bit of time during the passage of the Bill, to see whether in fact the two ways of approaching this are justified. Beyond that, I want to emphasise that the principle of the managed return seems to me eminently sensible, and my right hon. Friend has my support on it. The House will of course also want to look at some of the other issues that may apply to the details in respect of this scheme.
	On the seizure of passports, the point needs to be made that a passport is not actually a right to come into the United Kingdom. I say that because we have discussed it in the terms of the matter I have just been talking about. Ultimately, the issue of a passport is a prerogative power. It is, in some ways, vouching for the person concerned. There are many reasons why my right hon. Friend may rightly remove somebody’s passport, either before they leave the United Kingdom or when they are abroad. However, I raise the following issue. We are progressively giving more and more summary powers to seize passports. There is nothing wrong in that, if, for
	example, it is preventing people from leaving the country when there are good grounds for considering whether they are going to commit, or are likely to commit, an act of terrorism, but it increasingly raises the likelihood of travel documents and passports being seized when it might turn out subsequently on examination that there was no justification.
	The memorandum, properly prepared and passed off—I am sure—by the Law Officers before being issued, makes the point that taking passports interferes with article 8 rights. It must therefore raise the possibility of individuals who can show that their passports were wrongly taken making a claim for compensation. As far as I am aware, no issues of compensation have hitherto arisen from passport seizure. I appreciate that it might be different were it done maliciously, but I am talking not about malice but about errors made at the time the passport was removed.
	During the passage of the Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend and other colleagues on the Front Bench will think about the likely consequences, which might often be financial, of increasing powers of passport removal. I do not think that where there are reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in terrorism an individual has a right to compensation, but unfortunately there might be instances of people being targeted when they have no involvement in terrorism.
	Ultimately—I have said this previously in the House, but it is worth saying again—we are engaged in a values battle. We will not stop terrorism or prevent young people from going to participate in terrorism by whatever methods of law we pass in this House, however draconian they might be; we will stop this phenomenon when we can persuade people that the virtues of our society, which are many, despite some of its drawbacks, are very considerable and that its values should be respected. For that reason, when we enact such legislation, we must have it in mind that we do not, as an unintended consequence, create the very resentments that are likely to fuel terrorism in the future.
	Listening to the shadow Home Secretary, I was reminded that I have said that previously—over 90-day and 42-day pre-charge detention, both of which, I might add, were far more draconian attempts at interfering with the liberty of the subject than anything my right hon. Friend is doing in this measure, which I know she has brought forward with a prudent eye to the issues I have raised. On that basis, I welcome the Bill, but I hope that the matters I have touched on will be given serious thought.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), whose excellent and thoughtful speech leads me to conclude that were he still the Attorney-General, the Bill would not have appeared before the House in the form it has. I hope he makes it to the Committee, because the points he raised are extremely important to ensuring that the Bill is robust before it is passed by the House.
	I agree with the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield that these are dangerous times, which is why we require the greatest possible
	scrutiny of the Bill. I therefore begin by raising the concern of the Home Affairs Committee that we have not had the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill to the extent we would have liked. It was published only last week, and today is its Second Reading. We have not had an opportunity to hold any sessions, and no Minister has come before us. I know that the Home Secretary is extremely busy, but she managed to fit in several other engagements instead of coming before the Committee. It would have been much more appropriate had a Minister come before us before the Bill came to the House.

Theresa May: When we were discussing the Wanless and Whittam report, the right hon. Gentleman challenged me in the Chamber over the fact that I had not appeared before the Committee, when in fact the Committee had withdrawn the invitation. As I understand it—he might have a different understanding—I am due to appear before his Committee in two weeks.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary is right that she is due to appear before us in two weeks’ time, but the legislation will probably have passed through the House by then. If a piece of emergency legislation is coming before us, as it is now, Ministers should put themselves before the relevant Select Committee. The right hon. Lady managed to fit in a visit to the British curry awards last night, at which we were of course all delighted to see her, but the point is that the date of 16 December for this emergency legislation to come before the House was fixed many months ago, and Ministers must be prepared to be scrutinised on such legislation. That message clearly applies to all Select Committees. The Home Secretary may nod her head, but that is the position. Our Select Committee is now left to conduct a session on this Bill after its Second Reading, which we will do tomorrow.

Chris Bryant: Is it not a particular irony that the Government always drag their heels on legislation when it comes to a subject such as circus animals, but when it comes to legislation dealing with the liberty of the individual, the Government always want to expedite the processes through the House. Is that not a nonsense?

Keith Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend, although that also happened with a Government of whom we were both Members; it is a feature of the way in which Governments tend to introduce counter-terrorism legislation. Indeed, as the shadow Home Secretary said, mistakes are made, and there were mistakes under the last Government. I remember the incredibly important speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield on 42 days and 92 days, and the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on these issues. That is why it is so important to pause, consider, scrutinise and then report to the House. The Select Committee will not be in a position to produce a report for this House as we had hoped we might, simply because there is no time to do so as we have already reached Second Reading. By the time the Home Secretary makes her much-heralded appearance before us, the legislation will probably already have passed through the House.
	Having made my complaint about that matter, I agree that these are dangerous times. The Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary are absolutely right
	that we need to act quickly but carefully, while recognising not only that ISIL and extremist groups are operating in Iraq and Syria but that those who support those groups are acting in countries all over the world.
	Yesterday I met Nathalie Goulet, the chair of the French Senate Committee that is inquiring into the struggle of jihadi networks in France and Europe. I was astonished to hear that the situation in respect of French citizens travelling to Iraq and Syria is much worse in France than it is in our country. I looked up the last report our Select Committee published, and it must be a surprise for the House to learn that countries such as Belgium, Australia, even Norway are in exactly the same position as we are in respect of citizens who wish to travel abroad to fight.
	That is why we cannot see the fight against terrorism as something that affects just this House. The shadow Home Secretary was right to raise the international dimension. The Select Committee was very clear in its last report published earlier this year in saying that there needed to be an international platform, with countries able to pool information and act together. We suggested that we should work through Interpol, which we saw as the most appropriate organisation, as it already exists to share information about organised crime. We felt that that was a platform that could be developed to build an international network with allies such as the French, the Dutch and others to ensure that we do things together and learn good practice.
	I learned that in France, for example, they have a dedicated “Green Line”, which people can ring with information about those they suspect of being involved in terrorism, and parents can ring for advice and be guided in the right direction. As a result of the activities of the “Green Line”, the French authorities have been able to stop 200 people from travelling abroad to fight. There are other examples, and I hope that we use the good practice developed in other countries in order not to repeat mistakes and to move forward and try to find effective methods of stopping people from travelling.

David Winnick: My right hon. Friend talked about mistakes. Going further back, would it not be wise to remember some of the measures taken against IRA terrorism? Like everyone else, I opposed such terrorism from the very beginning; it had no justification. However, some of those measures, such as internment, were counter-productive and played right into the hands of the IRA. Should we not take that sort of thing into account?

Keith Vaz: Those are exactly the unintended consequences to which the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and others have referred. Of course we need powers in order to deal with those who wish to undermine the values of our society, but we need to be very careful about the way in which we use them, and we need to think about the consequences.
	A number of the recommendations made by the Select Committee over a number of years have been adopted in the Bill. We support what is being done in respect of radicalism, but we are cautious about some of the programmes that are being used. I do not support the placing of the counter-terrorism narrative in the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Select Committee has not inquired into that, but I believe that the Home Office is the lead organisation and these should be Home Office programmes. The
	problem with dealing with more than one Department is the need to persuade different Ministers and civil servants of the necessity of changing things. I do not think that it works very well when two Cabinet Ministers are responsible for roughly the same area of policy. This should be done with and through the Home Secretary, so that she can deliver locally what she tells the House that she wishes to deliver in a more strategic way.

Julian Lewis: Some of us feel that a seamless counter-narrative needs to be presented, and that therefore it would be more appropriate to set up one of the MISC or GEN Committees, as I believe they are called. Several Departments—I can think of four or five—could then have overall control of a counter-narrative that has yet to be properly generated.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman has worked very hard on this issue for some years. I believe that the status quo does not work, and I have every sympathy with his proposal, which would enable the different programmes to be delivered together.
	I mentioned earlier that the Home Secretary had addressed the Bangladeshi community yesterday. She was extremely well received by the 2,000 people who were present; she made a strong effort to relate directly to that important community. Obviously her message yesterday was different from her message today, because a different kind of event was involved, but the point is that we need to get into the DNA of communities.
	The Home Secretary’s constituency contains a south Asian community—indeed, like my own constituency, it contains various communities—but we have in this Chamber Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), both of whom are very much a part of their communities. Anyone who walks down the Lozells road with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr will see that the entire community relates to him. We are lucky to have not just him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East, but other Members with different origins, on both sides of the House. They will tell us what the voice of the community says, which is that being told what to do never works, whether by police officers or—if I say so myself—by men in grey or black suits. What is necessary is peer group pressure and community engagement, and those must come from communities themselves.
	How many times do we discover from the BBC news that parents have no idea that their children have gone to Syria to fight? One parent from Brighton said that he did not know where his son had gone until he was phoned and told that the son had died. That is why peer group pressure is so vital. How do we miss this point every time? We cannot tell communities what to do; we need to engage with them, and they need to move that process forward.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right about the need for us to engage with communities, but is it not our responsibility to try to understand some of what motivates people to go and do these appalling, dreadful things, such as illegal wars, conflicts in the middle east, and the injustices that they
	observe in Palestine? Is there a way in which we could try to understand, and perhaps take on, some of the issues that motivate people to become involved in extremist activity?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to understand much more, and we can only do so at local level: in the mosque, through community activities, in schools—as the Home Secretary said—in colleges, and in prisons. People who have not been radicalised go into those institutions and come out radicalised, and then there is a failure to monitor them. The solutions are all there—in reports written by Committees over a number of years, in contributions made in all the time Members have been in this House, and in speeches of Home Secretaries, as strong as the one we heard today, when she said what she wanted to put right as far as terrorism and radicalisation are concerned—but they are not acted upon, and they have to be acted upon, otherwise we will be back here in a year’s time doing the same thing again, and we do not want that.

Chris Bryant: Does that not highlight why, in considering giving new measures to the Home Secretary it is incumbent on us to assess whether that would radicalise people further or provide greater security to us? My anxiety about temporary exclusion orders is that exile has not had a good history in Britain. When Richard II exiled Henry Bolingbroke, he simply went abroad, gathered a whole load of allies and came back to this country and removed the King. My anxiety is that these new orders will do exactly the same thing.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is a greater historian than I am, but our constituents would say, if they were to find out there is someone causing mischief in Kenya, as Adebolajo was, that he should be kept in Kenya if the Kenyan authorities want to prosecute him, and that we should not try to bring him back. If there are people in these countries who are up to mischief and who wish to undermine the values of our country, I can understand perfectly why the Government are suggesting an exclusion order.
	The issue here is not that we should not accept that; it is to do with the practicalities that the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield have mentioned. Sometimes we need to be very careful that there is proper judicial scrutiny of the decisions we take. I think that sometimes our constituents would prefer such people not to come back. If they are brought back, they have to be monitored so they do not end up putting on a burqa, leaving a mosque and leaving the country, as Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed did. He wanted to stay in Somalia but was brought back to this country and now is nobody knows where.
	Of course I support this legislation. When a British Home Secretary comes before the House and says, “These measures are necessary in order to combat the severe threat we face,” the House will obviously support what the Home Secretary is doing. However, there is a need to scrutinise the practicalities, and the Home Office must work closely with the Select Committee and the House to ensure that we have a solution and decisions that will be in the best interests of our country, and will not create the kind of unintended consequences that we all wish to avoid.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary opened the debate by referring to the nature of the threat, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) in his contribution. The truth is that in some quarters there is a continual effort to suggest that the characterisation of the threat is in some way designed for political purposes. Both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend have been closer to the centre of the ring of secrecy than I ever have, although we on the Intelligence and Security Committee do acquire a degree of information that is not public. It is important that people understand that what we are facing is unprecedented, and that in such conditions, in deciding where the balance rests between security and privacy, it may be felt necessary to tilt the balance in a direction other than that in which one would normally wish to tilt it.
	May I make one preliminary point? I happened to be at St Andrews university yesterday conferring degrees on grateful students, and in the course of that it became clear to me that there is some anxiety among the university authorities about how they would properly implement the obligations that may be placed upon them. I therefore agree with the shadow Home Secretary that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s guidance in this matter is going to be of enormous importance. I am sure it will be as well drawn as possible, but the sooner that guidance is available, perhaps even for consultation, the better.
	In my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I made it clear that I am still not yet persuaded about the legality of the temporary exclusion order. It is helpful to look briefly at the conditions that would apply to someone against whom such an order was pronounced. They would be required not to return to the United Kingdom unless one of two conditions was satisfied: either the Secretary of State has issued a permit, or the individual has been deported to the United Kingdom. Some concern has been expressed about the fact that it is entirely within the power of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or indeed her successors, to apply the terms of such a permit. We are entitled to assume that they will be reasonable, but they may not be reasonable in the mind of the person against whom they are directed.
	So far, it has been perfectly clear from the contributions that have been made that everyone accepts that the exclusion of a British-born national from the United Kingdom is contrary to both law and practice. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield was eloquent in his description of what the common law amounted to. Is it not the case that the effect of exclusion is to remove the right of statehood to return, even if only temporarily, if the individual accepts the terms of a permit? If an individual does not accept the terms of a permit—subject to the fact that the orders have to be renewed at two-yearly intervals—the individual may, in effect, be unable to return in perpetuity to the United Kingdom, of which he or she is a national.
	The Prime Minister’s original statement on 1 September suggested that some kind of blanket ban on return could be effected, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I were both at pains to say that we doubted the legality of that. I understand that the temporary exclusion order is designed to bring
	within the sphere of legality the provision that the Government consider to be appropriate. However, I maintain my reservations for this reason: if the right to return is a matter of such principle, it can be neither capable of modification nor subject to conditionality. We are told that we are dealing with managed return. If it is managed return, why is it described in the Bill as a temporary exclusion order? The sense is turned right around by the description in the Bill, notwithstanding the explanation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given.

Edward Garnier: I may have misunderstood that point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making, and I hope that he will forgive me if I have done so. If the orders were to be called managed return orders, but the same procedures applied, would that make any difference? I am not sure that it would.

Menzies Campbell: No, it certainly would not. I think that that points up the fact that perhaps the issue was to find a description that, as has been suggested, might easily fit a headline, rather than the substance of the proposal. I see heads shaking on the Treasury Bench, but it would not be the first time that a definition created for easy understanding by the public and the press did not accurately reflect the precise terms of the legislation.
	One difficulty is that the Government, although they were no doubt informed by the advice of Law Officers, have none the less produced something that on any view innovates against the principle of the right of return. I respectfully say that if that principle is as inviolate as has been suggested, any such innovation must be contrary to law and contrary to practice. In that, I differ from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield but, as was pointed out to me on my first day as a law student, lawyers are well paid for being wrong 50% of the time. There are genuine differences of emphasis and understanding. The one thing we can be most certain about, however, is that this matter will be tested in the courts and, no doubt, in the Supreme Court in due course.

Dominic Grieve: I should emphasise that I do not disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s characterisation of “contrary to law”, which is why we have to be so very cautious about this. However, Parliament is ultimately sovereign and despite the existence of great things such as Magna Carta and habeas corpus, Parliament has, on occasion, ignored some of the key terms of both. One has to remember that power ultimately resides here, but when one starts to interfere with what is seen as a fundamental common law right, one should look at it carefully, and the courts will look at it carefully if they come to have to scrutinise it.

Menzies Campbell: A lot would depend on the interpretation of the strength of the right that a court was willing to place on the right of return. That is why I suspect that this will eventually be a matter for the Supreme Court, rather than for any intervening forum between the House of Commons and that one.
	I wish to draw attention to another element in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and her successors—I almost said heirs and successors, according to law—have a considerable discretion conferred
	upon them in this matter, first, about the imposition and, secondly, about the terms of a permit. It is said that judicial review is available for this, but let us consider the position of someone in a foreign country with a legal aid system less generous than ours—how could we even describe ours as generous these days? What is the possibility of their mounting a judicial review in advance of accepting that they can return only under certain conditions. David Anderson QC, who has already been referred to with some approval in this debate, has drawn particular attention to this matter. So the Government would be well advised to follow the suggestion that came at one stage in our debate—I do not recall from which side of the House—to ensure that there is some intervention from the court much earlier in the system. My right hon. Friend might be obliged to go to court to ask for such an order.
	As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I can agree, even if we do not agree in the ultimate interpretation, these are matters of considerable seriousness involving the liberty of the individual. In those circumstances, not only would it be right and proper to have the intervention of the court, but that might avoid the Home Secretary and her successors being engaged in political controversy because of the pronouncement of a TEO in a particular case. So I retain my scepticism and there is certainly a requirement that if this provision is to pass into law, the discretion of the Secretary of State should not be as stated in the Bill. Instead, there should be a requirement to seek judicial authority before the pronouncement of such an order.

David Winnick: I have listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech and fully agree with it. When the matter is being debated on the Floor of the House, as it will be on more than one occasion—I am also pleased about that—will we get the support of Liberal Democrats? I am not making a party point as such, because I know that he will vote as he considers appropriate. But it would greatly help to strengthen the measures announced by the Home Secretary, particularly on TEOs, if we could get a majority vote in favour of the High Court being involved before any such order is made.

Menzies Campbell: I am too long in the tooth to try to speak on behalf of my party leader, as the hon. Gentleman might expect, but I would most certainly support an amendment of that kind, and I would seek to persuade other men and women of like mind and good sense to do exactly the same.

Sammy Wilson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken a lot about the rights of those who may be excluded as a result of this provision, but would he care to say something about people who feel under threat from those who have gone from this country, trained to be terrorists, committed acts of terrorism and are likely to come back here to commit acts of terrorism? What has he got to say to the people who feel threatened? What safeguards would he put in place for them?

Menzies Campbell: In my own defence, when I first got to my feet—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present at the time—I went out of my
	way to applaud the fact that the Home Secretary and the former Attorney-General had both emphasised the nature of the threat that we face. I am in no doubt about, it as I am a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but that does not mean that we should close our eyes to the possibility of an illegality that might be challenged in the Supreme Court, which would have an enormously undermining effect on legislation of the kind that we are proposing. It is an argument in favour of careful consideration, which I am sure that this Bill will have as it passes through Committee.

Hazel Blears: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). The learned discussion between him and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) is slightly reminiscent of the legal discussions that we have in the Intelligence and Security Committee, where we are blessed with three Scottish Queen’s Counsel members.
	As a former counter-terrorism Minister, I am well aware of the difficulties of legislating in this area. Most of us wish that this legislation was not necessary. No politician in a democracy takes lightly action that will inevitably impact on the rights of individuals unless there is a compelling case to do so to protect our citizens as a whole.
	The framework against which we set this legislation should be the test that we apply to our agencies and all the work that we do. I am talking about the fact that any action must be lawful, necessary and proportionate, and that should be our guide in our scrutiny of this Bill today. That is the language of universal human rights, and we should judge any proposals against that test, which is well established in our law.
	Inevitably, this area will be contested territory; it always has been. I remember trying to take control orders through this House. It was one of our last all-night sittings. We sat throughout the night and had some amazing discussions at 4 am, some of which were intelligible and others of which were not, so I know how difficult it can be. It is contested territory, and that is as it should be in a strong democracy. I have no doubt that the debate over the next few weeks will be intense, passionate and occasionally noisy. It is up to us here in this House and in the other place to determine whether the proposals before us are necessary and proportionate to the threat that faces our country.
	Lots of Members this evening have set out the nature of that threat. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that if we look at the analysis, we can see that we have a problem in this country. We have at least 500 young men and women who have gone out to Syria, 250 of whom have probably come back. By comparison, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia have thousands of people who have gone out to be part of the conflict in Syria, so we should put the matter in perspective.
	If 250 people have come back, perhaps one in nine or 10 of them will be radicalised to the extent that they may want to do us harm in this country. If that is the case, we are talking about 25 or 30 individuals who have come back trained, radicalised and experienced in conflict.
	That may sound like a small number, but in actual fact it is a significant and serious threat. The resources required to have 24-hour surveillance on 25 to 30 people in this country are absolutely immense, and I am concerned about the resources that are being made available, even with the extra £130 million that the Prime Minister announced the other day.
	Professor Peter Neumann from the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation has done some interesting work on segmenting the kind of people who go out to fight in Syria and the people who come back. He has grouped them into three categories.
	First, we have the disturbed people who undoubtedly have mental health problems and who are particularly susceptible to the kind of narrative that is promulgated and that draws them into extremist activity.
	The second category is the dangerous. It includes those who are simply evil people and want to do us harm. They have records on social media of enticing other people to go out and take knives to people, chop their heads off or blow people up—they are dangerous people within our society. Interestingly, he describes the third category as the disillusioned. That includes all the people who have gone out to fight in Syria, perhaps in sympathy because they have seen on their televisions the terrible things that have happened to refugees and innocent families, but when they have got out there they have discovered that ISIS is a different proposition from what they thought. They never contemplated the viciousness, brutality, crucifixions and beheadings and they often find themselves fighting and killing other Muslims because of the factional and sectarian nature of the forces in Syria. It is an interesting analysis.
	I do not for one moment subscribe to the idea that there should be some kind of amnesty and that people should be allowed simply to come back into this country without facing any sanctions whatsoever. I absolutely believe that when people have committed criminal offences they should be prosecuted, convicted and put away for a long time.

Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work on community engagement, when in government and since then, as part of the taskforce. Drawing on all the work that she has done, what does she think is the tipping point? When does someone go from being a law-abiding citizen to deciding that they want to go? What pushes people over the edge? Are we any nearer to finding the cause?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. We have more experience now of the different paths that people take towards extremism, but it is still very complex. It is different for different people, but one key issue is emotional vulnerability. The analysis suggests that there are key points in people’s lives when they feel lonely or isolated and are more vulnerable to a message.
	The first year at university is often a difficult phase for people. They do not have a friendship group and can easily be drawn into activity that is glorified, that represents an adventure and that is full of passion and idealism. Some of us will no doubt have experienced similar circumstances in our own politics, and I was certainly fired up to go and do something about the injustice and
	inequality I found around the world. Luckily, I was not being groomed by extremists—at least, I do not think I was.
	One of the other causes for the 7/7 bombers was the possibility of being drawn into forced marriage. Those young men wanted to fall in love and to do so on their own terms and in their own way, and they found the prospect of forced marriage very difficult. Many emotional issues and transition points are key in young people’s education, as well as the messages that are put out.
	I am grateful to places such as the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s college, as well as other academic institutions, for the work they are doing on this issue. As the shadow Home Secretary said, we must follow the evidence where it takes us and not simply our own prejudices and views.
	I welcome the provisions in the Bill as a whole. Many are common sense. I have no doubt that the judicial involvement in the issues to do with temporary exclusion orders will be contested. The measures on aviation and rail security are simply common-sense approaches to matters that we need to take seriously.
	I want to focus on the issues to do with the Prevent strategy set out in part 5. I have a number of questions for the Government. Obviously, I welcome the fact that Prevent will be put on a statutory footing, as that is important in getting the appropriate resources in place and ensuring a consistent approach. A crucial part of this will be the evaluation of its effectiveness. When the Government did their review of Prevent three and a half years ago, they said that there were not sufficient measures of effectiveness, that there were no metrics, and that they were not able to measure the impact. What progress have the Government made in measuring the impact of the Prevent strategy, because I have seen no metrics, no valuation and no evidence on that score? If we are going to spend significant amounts of public money, as we have done and as I hope we will continue to, we must ensure that it is making a difference. Evaluation is therefore important.
	The duty that will be placed on schools, prisons, probation providers and local authorities is very welcome. The explanatory notes stated that the guidance would be published in tandem with the legislation, but I think that the bicycle has got a little bit ahead of the guidance. I hope that the guidance will be published as soon as possible, because it will be a key part of the debate. We need to see how effective it will be, how it will operate in practice and what its parameters will be. I urge the Minister to make that a top priority.
	My concerns about that agenda—I know that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) shares them—relate to counter-ideology. Where is the work, in the way chapter 5 is set out, on counter-ideology? Where is the work on tackling the narrative and ensuring that both online and offline there are positive messages that expose the poverty of this mediaeval ideology, which is about sharia law and establishing a caliphate, which is absolutely inimical to the right of women and girls, which does not believe in education, which is backward-looking, reactionary and does not provide a forward-looking view of what it means to be a Muslim in a modern, free and liberal democracy? It is all very well putting that duty on those organisations, but where is the work on counter-ideology? I want to hear from the Minister on that.

Khalid Mahmood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the reason why we had to tackle the issues of the Trojan horse schools in Birmingham, which were deliberately separately pupils, putting young girls to the back of the class and not giving them the same opportunities as boys, further reinforcing that stereotype?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is so right. I would like to place on the record my huge admiration for the courage he has shown in his community by standing up to some of the voices of reaction. That is never an easy place to be when taking a stand for something one believes in so strongly. He is second to none in the way he has enabled ordinary people in his community to speak out. They did not want that going on in their schools; they wanted their schools to educate their children for the future, not the past. He has done an amazing job.
	My second question to the Minister is this: where is the collective work happening? Tackling the threat is an issue for us all—parents, all of us in this House and people in the community. When we see people starting to be led down the extremist path, we have a responsibility to act. Even before that point there is work to be done in increasing the resilience of communities to withstand the extremist message. Again, that is difficult to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East asked what the evidence is for a tipping point. The truth is that it is complicated and we do not have all the answers, but I am absolutely convinced that it is not enough just to deal with individuals who are already radicalised, to refer to the Channel group, to have a panel discussion and to come up with a bespoke programme for that individual. That is not enough. It is essential, but it has to be complemented by work that empowers people in the community, the decent vast majority of Muslims in our country who feel absolutely betrayed by this perversion of their faith. They have to be empowered to stand up, be counted, push that message back and gather the consensus around the majority of the community. I do not see that in this Bill, and I want to.
	I want to put on the record my personal position on this, because there is a lot of confusion about it. As I think the Minister knows, I have always supported action against non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism. I did not always get 100% of my way—I am sure that the Home Secretary has experience of not always getting 100% of her way in Cabinet—but my personal position has always been that it is not enough to tackle violent extremism; we must also tackle the conditions in which it is allowed to become the accepted discourse and dialogue. That is where our strategy should be.
	I have no problem with the Home Office leading on Channel and on the police and the agencies, but I agree with the hon. Member for New Forest East that we need a broader view on this agenda, because there are so many Government Departments involved. I do not think that the Department for Communities and Local Government should lead on this, but I believe that it has a role to play in bringing communities together. I am very disappointed by that Department’s lack of action and its failure to produce a counter-extremism strategy. We have had a statement, but we have seen no action to back it up over the past three years. I think that the issue is now incredibly pressing.
	I will briefly say something on de-radicalisation. It is an even newer field and we have even less best practice on it. A very good European Union study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue has given examples from other countries, but they are mainly based on bringing people out of far-right extremism. The Islamist threat has not yet been explored enough. We need to do more work on that. People in this country are doing great work, including Shiraz Maher from the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters, and those at the JAN Trust and the Active Change Foundation. We have some great, great people who we need to support to make a difference.
	I conclude with what the Prime Minister said—credit where it is due—in his Munich speech three and a half years ago:
	“This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us. It cannot be ignored or contained; we have to confront it with confidence—confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so many young minds at their root, and confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries.”
	Our country is a great place for people to live and grow up—a country of freedom, tolerance and inclusivity. We have to stand for those values and stand against the wicked, pernicious, narrow, divisive extremist agenda that is unfortunately pervading so many of our young people.

Julian Lewis: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to follow an excellent speech by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears).
	At the end of the Home Secretary’s forthright speech, she said that we are “in the midst of a generational struggle”. That is true, but we are also in the midst of an ideological struggle. That is the message that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and I have been trying to deliver to the Government. Our message is that we are well served by our security and intelligence agencies in identifying and disrupting home-grown terrorists, but we lack comparable capacity to neutralise the ideology that infects them in the first place and to support mainstream moderate Muslims in challenging the extremists’ perverted distortion of Islam.
	In reviewing our current strategy and policies to prevent people from being radicalised and drawn into extremist activity, we should, as I said in an intervention, follow the precedents of the wartime efforts to expose and denounce fascism and the cold war campaigns to counter communist totalitarianism. The extremist ideology of political Islam is a similarly totalitarian creed requiring an organised effort to undermine its appeal and to strengthen the long-term resilience of the communities that are most vulnerable to it.
	In order to succeed, this work must be owned by the whole of Government on a cross-departmental basis, working closely with local government in engaging with civic and faith organisations on the ground. It requires the creation of a specialist counter-propaganda agency—I use the word “propaganda” in its non-pejorative sense—to develop a counter-narrative and to support communities in their efforts to challenge the extremists. This agency should operate under the supervision of a permanent
	ministerial committee on which the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development are represented.
	I assure you, Mr Speaker, that I did not give the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles any warning of what I am going to say next, but I am nevertheless going to say it, at the risk of embarrassing her. I feel—as, I am sure, will many others—that it is a great loss, given her specialist knowledge and flair for this subject, that she has decided to leave the House of Commons at the next election. Should such an agency be set up in future, I can think of no better person to run it than the right hon. Lady—whether she wants the job or not.
	As we have heard, the Prime Minister has said, as far back as three years ago but also more recently, it is not enough to tackle terrorism; it is also necessary to counter what he calls the “poisonous ideology” that underlies it. The Home Secretary now says that we need to tackle non-violent as well as violent extremism, so the message is clearly getting through, but there is still some way to go. Why is there such reluctance to recognise that what we ought to be calling un-Islamic extremism, and what we certainly should not be calling Islamic State, should be confronted at a similar level, on a similar scale, and in a similar way to our approach to fascist and communist ideologies in the past? The answer, I suspect, is the fear of the pseudo-religious basis of this incarnation of traditional totalitarian, extremist doctrine.
	I want to draw the House’s attention to a particularly important article by Charles Moore in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday 29 November. It is headed, “We won’t defeat extremism until we understand their ideology”, with the sub-heading, “Stopping jihadists is one thing—but stopping them from wanting to kill is more important”. The article reflects very much the views that I have been putting forward in this speech, but neither I nor the right hon. Lady had any contact with Mr Moore before he wrote it. It is always very encouraging when somebody of that calibre independently arrives at similar conclusions to those that one has oneself reached.

Hazel Blears: I cannot anticipate what the hon. Gentleman is going to say next, but I did speak to Charles Moore last week, so I would not want him to mislead the House inadvertently.

Julian Lewis: That only goes to show that the right hon. Lady and I do not co-ordinate our efforts as seamlessly as perhaps we ought, because I should have known that. Anyway, the important thing about the article is that it looks at the consequences and conclusions of our recently published Intelligence and Security Committee report on the terrible events in Woolwich. The main question in Charles Moore’s mind about the killers is: what is it that made them so bloodthirsty and so bold in the first place? Why did they want to do such a terrible thing? He comes to the conclusion:
	“Islamist extremism combines something very new—the power of internet technology—with something very old—the power of belief.”
	He says that the report establishes that
	“Lee Rigby’s murderers were ‘self-starting’”,
	but that
	“they were not lunatics or even ‘lone wolves’. They took large doses of the drug called ideology…It was supplied by pushers who might live in their neighbourhood, but might equally well live in Yemen or Aleppo.”
	Charles Moore refers to the calls that have been made to start a counter-narrative, but he notes that MI5, for all its good work, does not have—some would say that it should not have this; it is not necessarily its responsibility to have it—an ideological unit. He says:
	“It is rather as if we were trying to combat Communism without knowing the theories of Marxist-Leninism.”
	He concludes:
	“Time after time, it is non-violent subversion that has prepared the ground for serious trouble”,
	and he warns against the danger of running around
	“trying to catch the bad fruit, instead of taking an axe to the tree.”
	This is a problem that we face at a scale that is not yet insupportable, but which could get very much worse.
	Somebody once said that the problem with the world is that the ignorant are cocksure and the wise are full of doubt. The problem we have is that some people with a racist, radical, totalitarian, extremist, murderous ideology have found a way, in the name of their interpretation of their God and their Prophet, to do what extremists have always wanted to do, which is to enjoy untrammelled power over everyone else.
	One cannot mobilise a society or a community to counter that successfully if one confines oneself simply to dealing with individuals whom one has already recognised as at risk of radicalisation, because they will already be on the conveyor belt to an extremist outcome and, very probably, to a violent extremist outcome. What one has to do is not to be shy about the virtues of democratic politics, institutions and ideas, or about denouncing the follies and iniquities of systems based on an ideology that stands in total opposition to everything that moderate and liberal-minded people believe.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is making such a powerful speech that I am loth to interrupt him. I am sure that he would appreciate, respect and understand the fact that we, too, have a responsibility for creating some of the conditions that have allowed this dreadful, awful and appalling ideology to take root, through decisions such as those about military adventures in the middle east, injustice in Palestine and illegal wars. In his rounded assessment, surely he should also look at our responsibility for allowing this to happen.

Julian Lewis: When I heard the hon. Gentleman, in his articulate fashion, make that point in an earlier intervention, I felt, frankly, that it was a counsel of despair. If he is saying—[Interruption.] Let me give him my answer. If he is saying that the only way to stop terrorism is to bring peace to the middle east, then, frankly, we are never going to stop terrorism. [Interruption.] I will let him intervene again in a moment if he so wishes. I want to put to him the more serious point that we have a Muslim community of between 2 million and 3 million citizens, but I am very pleased to say that out of that very large number, only a very tiny number resort to such methods. If the real cause was western folly in interfering in the middle east, that would still not justify what the tiny minority of Muslims are doing. I will give way to him again.

Pete Wishart: In no sense was my intervention an attempt to justify what is happening. It was about accepting and assuming our responsibility following the decisions that we have made. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that military adventures in the middle east have increased radicalisation, with some people finding such an ideology as a response to their ultimate and desperate frustration. Surely the hon. Gentleman must recognise that.

Julian Lewis: What I recognise is that the events the hon. Gentleman is talking about are legitimate in a democratic society for argument and disagreement, but not for resorting to terrorism.

Pete Wishart: indicated assent.

Julian Lewis: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement, so I will quit the exchange at that point.

Menzies Campbell: rose—

Julian Lewis: I was about to wind up my remarks, but I cannot resist giving way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for taking advantage of his good manners. In his very careful analysis, does he draw any parallel between the fact that for a long period in the 1930s Nazism was tolerated—indeed, in some parts of this country, it was welcomed—without a full understanding of the philosophy behind it, and the extravagant and extreme fruition of that philosophy in Hitler’s expansionist ambitions?

Julian Lewis: I absolutely accept that parallel. Many other parallels could be drawn that are similar to the one the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made so perceptively. For example, democracies in the 1930s faced the twin dangers of Soviet communism on the one hand and Hitlerism on the other, which is why it is understandable, although unforgivable in retrospect, that some people chose to back the Nazi approach in preference to meeting what they thought was the threat of bolshevism advancing against the western system of life and liberty.
	Therefore, one can indeed draw parallels with the twin problems that we see now. There is a thousand-year war between Shi’a Muslims and Sunni Muslims. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said in his interventions, as we make our attempts—sometimes misguided and sometimes more sensible—to mitigate the outcomes of such conflicts, we should not be surprised if there is a blowback effect, to some extent, on the more volatile elements in the community here. I think that I have now got his point to his satisfaction.
	In conclusion, bearing in mind your precept, Mr Speaker, that one should never have more than one or perhaps two main points for somebody to take away from a contribution in the House of Commons or any other public arena, the point that I wish to urge on the Government is the same one that I have urged before with the support of—indeed, I should say under the leadership of—the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles: we need to face up to the ideology in its purest
	and most evil form. It is an ideology. It is not the ideology of Islam. We must mobilise and support those people in the Muslim community who wish to tackle this matter, and we must not be afraid to set up institutions and organisations that are capable of dealing with this formidable threat.

Khalid Mahmood: Today and over the past 10 days or so, the vast majority of people in the Muslim community in the United Kingdom, which numbers between 2.5 million and 3 million people, will have been apprehensive about what the Bill holds for them, how they will come to look at it and in what way they must play a part in delivering this policy and moving it forward. There will, of course, be those who will try to capitalise on that. They will say, “This Bill is about putting you down. It is about doing things to you because you are not regarded as full UK citizens or as belonging to society in the UK.” Those are the people we have to look at and deal with.
	I stand before the House as a member of the Muslim community who believes that those people do not speak for me. The ideology that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) spoke about is very warped. I refuse to call it a Muslim or Islamic ideology, because in no way does it encompass the beliefs that I have. To me, Islam translates as submission; it is not about torturing people and it is not about killing people of different faiths. Recognising the three great Abrahamic faiths, which belong to the book, and calling any of them kufr is certainly not justified in any way. These people will use whatever little snippet they can grab hold of, try to turn the whole thing upside down, and use that as a recruiting sergeant for their ideology. They did not have the right to cruelly butcher Alan Henning. My respects go to his whole family for what they have suffered. There is certainly no justification for that in any religion of Islam that I support, believe in and will continue to believe in.
	Before I consider the issues before us, I pay a huge tribute to the police, not just in Birmingham and the west midlands where I belong, but across the country, and to the security services, which have done a tremendous job over the past decade or so to protect us all from the plots that have been mentioned by the Home Secretary and others. That is what they do, day in, day out, and they deserve huge gratitude.
	As for the Bill, the first issue that I wish to raise concerns the strengthened powers of temporary restrictions on travel and the suspension of passports. A number of Members have dealt with that point, so I will try to make my remarks fairly brief. The shadow Home Secretary had a significant amount to say about it, and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) made some important remarks about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) also made some good points about whether legal aid would be granted to the people in question. We need to look more deeply at the proposal, because, as a number of Members have mentioned, it will leave us in a legal quagmire. I only wish the Government had taken some more time to consider it. Unless we are prepared to do that, the problems will not be dealt with properly.
	On the subject of passports and people coming into the country, I do not believe that we currently have sufficient border agency staff to deal with the problem.
	We need to move forward on that if we are to solve it in any way. It was said earlier in the debate that 500 people have travelled to Syria—a figure that I do not necessarily agree with—and that at least half of them have returned. If so, where are they? If we had proper passport control and exit controls, perhaps we would know. Not only are we missing those people coming back, but we are missing a huge opportunity to learn from them how they were radicalised, what their points of contact were and what happened. We miss that opportunity at our peril. I welcome the fact that the shadow Home Secretary said that she wanted to reinstate 1,000 border control personnel to fill that gap, because it is important that we deal with the problem.
	I turn now to control orders, if I can call them that. I was in the Chamber when TPIMs were first discussed, and the Government did not really want to listen to the Opposition or the shadow Home Secretary. Unfortunately, we are back here now discussing control orders under different guises and different names, and there are different protestations about what we are supposed to be doing. Control orders are a difficult legal issue, but when people are significantly radicalised, it is important to try to resolve that problem. We have to start tackling it so that we can stop those people spreading their evil ideology and recruiting more people through their presence in the community. We need to find a proper answer, and we have not had the wherewithal to do that—as has been said, two people under TPIMs escaped.
	The Government need to consider security arrangements overall. The new budget for the security services is welcome, but the cuts to the police and the forthcoming further cut of 30,000 people will not help. If we are saying that TPIMs are important for the safety and security of our citizens, surely we must consider how we can best put them into effect. Without the personnel on the ground, it will be difficult for us to do that.
	I deal now with Prevent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) made a fantastic point about the work that she has done, particularly when she was in office as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I remember a meeting that we had about some of these issues just before she left office. The issue that I raised at the time was ideology. On the subject of Prevent and how these problems are dealt with, slashing the budget from £17 million to £3 million did not help, nor did giving the responsibility to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which was not bothered about how we dealt the matter or how we moved forward, and which did hardly anything in that respect. We need to consider how we deal with radicalisation through Prevent.
	I welcome the measures placed on schools, colleges, universities, prisons and young offenders institutions. Those measures will go some way. I had to deal with the “Trojan horse” schools in Birmingham, and found myself in a very lonely place. Everybody criticised me. Colleagues on the Opposition Benches were not happy with what I said. I had known for some time that there were issues that had to be dealt with. The difficulty for me was that they were not in my constituency, but in the end I got involved because I thought enough was enough. Somebody had to get involved and deal with them.
	There were clear signs of what was happening in the classroom. I had taken an interest in such matters before. I spoke to head teachers of those schools, former
	head teachers who had been excluded from those schools, deputy head teachers, senior teachers who had been excluded from those schools, parents and governors who had been pushed out of those schools. I even spoke to students in those schools. Practices that went on were, for example, boys and girls not being allowed to sit together, and the girls being pushed to the back of the classroom so that they would know their place.
	I spoke to one of the parents, who said everything was fine and none of that happened. I asked whether any of her children went to the school in question. She said that both her son and her daughter went there. I asked her to ask one of them. She asked her son. He said, “Yeah, Mum, that happens normally.” The mother asked, “Why don’t I see it?” Her son said, “When you come to school, there’s a different arrangement from what we normally do in class.” On parents evening, the parents were shown the school acting normally, but when they were not present the girls were made to sit at the back and the boys in front.
	The schools had a specific interpretation of music and art and photographs of the human form or living form. The children were even told that if they had photographs of their parents or grandparents at home, or photographs of other family members, perhaps deceased, that was not right and was a crime under Islam. That is what was happening. Many people might see it as non-extremist radicalisation, but if a school has a child for eight years and passes on such teaching, what happens when the child leaves and goes to college with that ideology fixed in their mind? We need to think about how we deal with these issues and move forward.
	As part of Prevent, we should recognise that we have a generation of lost young people—a small minority, as the hon. Member for New Forest East said, but still far too many.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making a very interesting contribution. Does he agree that one of the problems—only one of them—is the high degree of Islamophobia that is reported in many of our newspapers and media all the time? Any discussion about anything to do with the Muslim community rapidly descends into a quite unpleasant area. This is played out in our communities, schools, colleges and streets, and some young people are forced into extreme positions because of it. That is bad, but we should recognise that there is a bigger problem concerning perceptions in society, which has to be challenged.

Khalid Mahmood: I certainly agree that there are issues of Islamophobia in terms of employment, but it comes to something when people call me Islamophobic because of the work I did with the Trojan horse schools. Control of the press is difficult, given the way it sometimes tries to—excuse the pun—“sex up” certain issues. That is difficult to deal with and we need a far wiser press to do that. Trying to further excite the issue of Islamophobia affects the wider community, and we must look at that.
	There are real issues about how we deradicalise our young people, and the way to do that is not to allow a half-way house—as we have done previously—or look to non-extremist organisations to hold that place. If they do that, the ideology of the non-extremist organisation allows issues to foment; we allow people to get the
	whole of that ideology into place, and it is then easily pushed to the next stage. That is my problem when people say that we can use some of those organisations to prevent extremism. We are currently trying to deal with issues in Birmingham, and Channel and Prevent programmes have been used with some of those organisations.
	If we are to provide the safeguards we must consider the issue. Unfortunately we have had the missing link of leadership from within the Muslim community—whether the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, or other national organisations that said they represented Muslims across the community—which did not quite deliver that. To save that lost generation, and future generations, we need a joint effort. We must start ideologically, from the point of Islam, to stop people persuading young people from within the Muslim community—including different schools of Sunni, Shi’a and other schools of thought in Islam—to be ripped away from their parents, community and societies. That is the best way to move forward. I would like to discuss other issues in the Bill, but time does not permit so I will do so at a later stage.

Martin Horwood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) who made a heartfelt speech and spoke as an authentic voice for British Muslims in a way that extremists of various ideologies do not.
	I often speak in the House on international issues rather than domestic home affairs, but it is important to reinforce the importance of the international context. If we talk about tackling the free flow of potential terrorists to and from various countries in Europe to states in the middle east, and if we ask the Gulf states to stop the flow of funds and support to those organisations, or ask Turkey and others in the neighbourhood to stop the flow of people across its borders, we must also play our part. It is important that we respond to the new challenge of people going as potential fighters from this country and other countries across Europe to play their part in atrocities and the awful war in the middle east that is spreading from country to country.
	We can do that in our own self-interest, not only because we are legitimate potential targets for Daesh, or IS, or whatever we want to call it, but because it is the right moral and humanitarian response to try to inhibit those who would cause such unimaginable brutality, and instead to promote peace and an end to the suffering. That in turn would reduce the need for us to contribute enormous resources in humanitarian, political and even military terms to help solve these crises.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was right to support the Government in saying that there is a clear and present danger to the UK from IS, as indeed there still is from al-Qaeda and other similar extremist organisations that pose a threat to the security of this country. However, it is important to remember that we have faced terrorism before, and while the dangers may be new and extremely violent, we must guard against over-reacting or reacting in such haste that in some way we compromise the liberties we seek to protect.
	I am a great defender of our security and intelligence services—I have to be as the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham. I see a great tradition stretching back to the code-breakers of Bletchley Park. People regard them as absolute heroes for their contribution to surveillance and intelligence during the second world war, but the same people sometimes forget that the self-same organisation under the new name of GCHQ has continued through to the present day, and protects our liberties in a vital way. In fact, GCHQ works under a much more comprehensive scrutiny, legal and oversight framework. Such a framework did not apply to the Government code and cipher school during the second world war so, in a sense, we could say that Bletchley Park was illegal. GCHQ certainly does not act illegally.
	Even my constituents in Cheltenham who work for what is euphemistically called “the office” would be the first to say that it is not for them to tell the Government or Parliament where the line should be drawn between liberty and security. It is also not for hon. Members to over-respond to the fears of the intelligence and security services in drawing those lines. We must take a measured view and judgment, and be cautious about where the line is drawn.
	The Labour Opposition and Liberal Democrat Ministers have accepted that the Bill broadly strikes the right balance, and will support the Bill today. Therefore, it is right to point out that the modifications to people’s right to come back into the country with a British passport are not the same as making them stateless, and that the differences have been carefully drafted in the Bill; that the new version of TPIMs are not control orders, and that there are many differences between them; and that the data retention elements of the Bill on IP addresses were not objected to in the original draft Communications Data Bill by, for instance, the Liberal Democrats.
	There are differences and the safeguards have been thought about, but there are serious questions. The former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), raised some of those questions. They spoke of the process of temporary exclusion and asked where precisely it leaves the legal status of those who are temporarily excluded or denied passports, and what their rights are to challenge those orders. There might be a suggestion in the explanatory notes or the Government’s response that we need not worry, and that processes will ensure that the orders are designed only temporarily to interrupt someone’s return to this country, so that they can be met either by a person or legal measure designed to make them less of a threat to the public, but that detail or explanation needs to be in the Bill. Perhaps the question whether the phraseology of the Bill is clear enough will be addressed in Committee.
	The same goes for the questions about TPIMs. Liberty and others have suggested that TPIMs reinstate aspects of control orders that allowed for internal exile, which led to some control orders being declared illegal. They say that that is not just the wrong thing to put into legislation, but a weakness, because it would make the measures less effective.
	The Open Rights Group and others have focused on some of the loose definitions in the data retention portion of the Bill. If we follow the trail of what
	constitutes relevant data in the Bill through the various clauses to the annexes and the explanatory notes, we find that it is not absolutely clear what relevant data are in the Bill. Internet providers are not absolutely defined, so perhaps more clarification is needed and more safeguards need to be built into the Bill in Committee.
	There is a slightly deeper question. The House often responds to a challenge to security and public safety with legislation, but the response we need is often not a legislative one. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and other hon. Members talked about ideology. There is good evidence that many young people who go out to the middle east to take part in these battles are not really seduced by any sophisticated form—or even a perverted form—of Islamic ideology. In fact, they know very little about Islam at all. They are more seduced by attractive slick internet videos, social media and social pressures from within a peer group who have become alienated from their own communities. That is not about ideology, but a propaganda war that has to be fought. The best response to that is not always legislation. The best response may be to understand what mainstream society needs to feed back to communities and young people, and to understand why they are so alienated and why they are being seduced by these social media techniques.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that these people are not steeped in the religion of Islam, and are receiving a perverted and simplistic message. Our side of the argument still needs to be put in a comparably efficient way.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. My underlying point is that legislation is not always the forum through which we will provide the answers to these questions.
	It seems there is consensus across the House that the Bill should go forward, but there are serious questions to be answered. There needs to be careful examination in Committee to ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance between liberty and security.

George Howarth: Before coming on to specific provisions in the Bill, I want to say a few words on the context. Taken together, the provisions need to be subjected to a number of tests, some of which have already been debated, to see whether they are a coherent and effective way of tackling the problems we have already experienced with home-grown terrorism, and the problems of fighters in Syria and Iraq coming home, which has already started to happen.
	The first and most important test, which has been discussed but needs to be reiterated, is whether proposed restrictive or intrusive measures strike the right balance between personal liberty and the right to privacy, and the degree of monitoring and restrictions placed on those who are considered to be posing a threat.
	The second test is in some ways more problematic. It relates to the practical and legal framework in which any of the measures must operate to be effective in practice. The exchange between the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife
	(Sir Menzies Campbell) brought out perfectly how legal principles and practical considerations sometimes do not quite work out in the way set out in a Bill.
	My final introductory point is not so much a test, but, rather, relates to having a better understanding of the paths to radicalisation, something my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) talked about. If we ignore those paths and do not understand them, there will always be a danger that proposed measures will be ill-suited to the problem we are trying to challenge.
	Before saying a few words on the process of radicalisation in the UK, I want to thank, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence at King’s College London, and in particular its director Peter Neumann. Its work has shaped my own thinking on this subject.
	Researchers who have studied the phenomenon of radicalisation have identified certain key ingredients. These include “root causes” or “grievances”, including poverty, political marginalisation and exposure to a specific ideology—we have talked about how violent jihadism seems to offer an answer, or at least an explanation, for that sense of grievance—and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East called “peer group pressure” and what social scientists call “social and group dynamics”. However, this area is problematic, because there are different types of group and different types of individual; some act alone, operate differently and are influenced by different means.
	I shall give two examples. First, Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the London bombers, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles mentioned, became disillusioned with his family and the local mosque over the teaching on arranged marriages. He wanted to make other life choices, as is modern and understandable in a young person, but the initial rejection escalated to the point where he became a violent jihadist and bought completely into the Salafist violent ideology, which was then reinforced by group loyalty. The ISC in its report studied that issue in great detail.
	Secondly, by way of contrast, there is the case of Roshonara Choudhry, who tried—thankfully unsuccessfully —to murder my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). She was a lone wolf, as the media put it, unconnected to any group; her radicalisation took place entirely on the internet. She had a grievance over foreign policy, bolstered by a growing sense of a particular version of Islamic identity, which took on a violent and ideological character. Those are some of the things that researchers have come up with and which we need to take into account.
	The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) talked about counter-narrative in the context of the Prevent strategy and was asked about comparisons with Nazism in Germany and Marxist-Leninism. I understand the point, but there is a difference: the ideology we are talking about is intertwined with a particular view of Islam, which makes it a different kind of belief. Nazism and Marxist-Leninism offer particular world views, but this offers a world view that extends beyond the realms of the world—if he follows my meaning.
	We ought to acknowledge that perhaps the state is entirely the wrong organ to propose a counter-narrative. If I were a Muslim in this country, I would resent the
	state’s telling me what Islam was and what I could believe, as I would were I a member of a Christian faith, a Hindu or any other religious believer. It is not the job of the state to tell people what views to hold. I agree that there is a need for a counter-narrative, but I do not believe it is the role of the state to come up with it—and certainly not to promote it.
	Part of the Bill deals with the problem of communications data, and here I think there is one area where a certain part of the private sector could help. I refer to internet providers. Our ISC report last week referred to an unnamed internet provider that had some information about one of the people who killed Fusilier Lee Rigby that was not passed on to the agencies.
	A paper that came out earlier today from the Quilliam Foundation made what I think was a sensible suggestion. It said:
	“Private sector companies, particularly social media companies and ISPs, can also work to facilitate”
	what it calls “counterspeech”,
	“in a way that provides deliverables to counter-extremism. These private companies benefit from supporting counterspeech content as a means of countering online extremism since it creates a healthier realm of ideas within their platforms and naturally develops a more hostile environment for individuals wanting to use online platforms for extremist and/or terrorist-related purposes.”
	I think that is a good idea, so I hope Ministers and others will think carefully about how those companies can be used if not exactly to promote a counter-narrative, at least to provide space where a counter-narrative can exist, and perhaps in some cases even a side bar where the opposite point of view can be put.
	The final issue I want to cover is TPIMs. The ISC, on which I and other right hon. and hon. Members sit, raised its concerns about them in two of our annual reports. In 2012-13, we said:
	“The Committee shares the concerns of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation over what happens when individual Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures…come to the end of their two-year limit. The Government must take steps now to ensure that they have sufficient policies in place when TPIMs have reached their limit and cannot be extended.”
	In our annual report of 2011-12, we said:
	“The Committee is concerned about the potential increase in the overall risk as a result of the introduction of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) regime.”
	My late friend, Paul Goggins, who was also member of our Committee, pursued this issue doggedly both in our Committee and on the Floor of the House. I would like to cite a point he made in June 2011:
	“My final point is whether the whole new TPIM system represents the same level of risk as we had with control orders or a greater level of risk. I can only assume that the Home Secretary believes there is an increased risk from the new TPIM system, otherwise why would she be committing a serious level of resource—whatever that level is—to the police and the Security Service to help them deal with the additional work and the additional pressures that will result from the new system?”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 88.]
	As ever, Paul showed a sensible note of caution in what he said at the time, and in view of what has happened since, he was characteristically prescient in the remarks he made.
	I started with a principle or a test, saying that the loss of civil liberties on the one hand always has to be balanced against the gains in national security on the other hand. As we have heard, those judgments still cannot be fully made in respect of large sections of the Bill. I do not oppose its Second Reading and I do not think that there is any move to do so, but a number of questions remain to be asked and a number of tests remain to be passed before everyone can feel comfortable with it, and I hope that those concerns can be laid to rest during its later stages.

Pete Wishart: Here we go again, with yet another counter-terror Bill to tackle yet another threat posed by extremism—yet another essential set of measures to keep our nation safe, and to be rushed through at breakneck speed—accompanied, predictably, by yet another escalation of the threat that we are supposed to be experiencing. We are invited to believe that we are surrounded by terror plotters and backers, jihadist bombers, extremists, and just good old-fashioned nutters. No one is safe; threats are everywhere. That is why we need this legislation as quickly as possible, just as we have needed all the other Bills as quickly as possible. There have been seven counter-terrorism and security Bills since 9/11, all of which have been rushed through Parliament, all of which have been absolutely necessary, and all of which have been fast-tracked.
	I suspect that this will not be the last counter-terrorism and security Bill. In fact, I do not suspect that it will be the last of the calendar year. I suspect that there will be at least one more, perhaps two, and that they too will have to be rushed through Parliament to meet the escalating threat with which we must deal. As we have heard so many times in so many speeches, we live in an era in which there will always be an existing, growing threat for us to address. So what do we do? We do the same things.
	Every counter-terrorism Bill that we have considered in the House could probably be characterised by a few key features that seem to crop up again and again. We must gather, retain and collect vast amounts of personal data from internet service providers. In this instance, internet protocols must be collected just in case we find something that could be used in the future. That cause is very dear to the Home Secretary’s heart, because she still hankers after a snoopers’ charter. She would probably have her way in the event of a majority Conservative Government next year, because I fully expect it to be included in any Conservative manifesto. We must continue to subject suspects to internal exile, for that is exactly what we are doing. I applauded the Conservatives when they reversed new Labour’s control orders—I thought that TPIMs were an improvement—but we are back to what is effectively internal exile. We are working towards depriving people of statehood. We are preventing people from travelling, and we are considering home arrest without trial. It is all the usual stuff.

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend may recall that, during the last Parliament, 90 days of detention without trial seemed to be the litmus test of the Blair Government’s machismo. That fell by the wayside, but, in view of what
	my hon. Friend has been saying about those seven Bills and the “groundhog day” aspect of this debate, does he envisage a return to the “90 days” proposal?

Pete Wishart: I know that my hon. Friend has been paying real attention to some of the conversations that we have been having. That is exactly how Labour behaved. What a Government! They established and effectively monitored an anti-civil libertarian state. My hon. Friend is spot on when he reminds us of the proposal for 90-day detention. The one reason for which I applauded the incoming Conservative Government was that the first thing they did was bring about the bonfire of the ID cards and the national database. Is it not depressing that they have fallen into their old manners and customs? They are almost right back to where the Labour Government were in supporting the creation and maintenance of an anti-civil libertarian state.
	We always get this wrong. At the heart of all these counter-terrorism Bills is a critical balancing act. On one hand there is our need for security—the need to make our citizens safe—and on the other hand are the civil liberties that we all enjoy as a result of being part of a democracy.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one problem is that there is a mentality and a default position that anything to do with national security and terrorism has to be dealt with by secretive special courts and a secretive special process, all designed to protect the security services from any kind of accountability? Does he agree that we should actually rely much more on the basis of the criminal law, so that where people commit criminal acts, they should be tried for that crime?

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the last feature I wanted to include in the list of what we always see in these counter-terror Bills, which is the very thing he mentions; it is all about suspicion, and the powers of the Home Secretary and how she will be allowed to exercise them, never testing things in courts, because the evidence is not substantive enough. It is all to do with this idea that somehow we have got to make people safe in this country by proposing all sorts of control mechanisms on suspects. If the Government were serious about this—if they believed and had the courage of their convictions—they should take it to court and test it in the public court, and give people an opportunity to defend themselves. If someone is subject to one of these new TPIMs, they have no means to try to fight their defence; they have no access to having that tested in court. The Government talk about how extremism develops, about radicalisation and about the furthering of ideologies, but when they are doing things like this, it is no surprise that people might take a jaundiced view about some of the things that happen.
	I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). It was good and there was very little I could disagree with. Some of the things that are necessary to tackle extremism are the sorts of things he presented, and many of the things mentioned by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) are also absolutely necessary, but we have got to look at ourselves. We have got to look at the decisions we made. We have got to understand the things we have said, passed and done that may have inflamed the situation.
	If we cannot do that, we are not acting responsibly. We have got to make sure we account for our actions and see what they led to.
	I was in the House when we had the debate on the Iraq war, as were other Members, and we said what would happen as a consequence of the Iraq war—an illegal war that inflamed opinion and passions not just in communities here, but communities around the world. We said that there would be a consequence and a reaction. That has come true. That has happened. The reason why we are now having to mop up with this type of legislation and these types of measures is because of some of the critical decisions we took, and some of the appalling and bad decisions we made and are still accounting for.

Hazel Blears: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that, in equal measure, the decision not to intervene in the events in Syria may also have inflamed the feelings of some of the people who saw the terrible events played out on their screens showing what was happening to vulnerable families in those circumstances?

Pete Wishart: What I accept is that there was a failure to recognise some of the international dynamics that influence communities in this country. The solution always seems to be that we have to intervene—that we have got to try to make the world better—and sometimes we are unaware of the unintended consequences that come from that. All I am saying to this House is that at some point we have got to acknowledge what we have done in terms of framing the conditions and setting the environment in which these things happen. By failing to do that, and by failing to acknowledge that type of issue, we will be hampered in our approach to these matters, and the very good things in Prevent and all the anti-radicalisation programmes will fall and fail, because we will have missed out a crucial part of the holistic view we need to take of these things.

Angus MacNeil: Syria has been mentioned. Last year the idea was to intervene in Syria on one side, but this year the idea was to intervene on the other side. As we encourage professionals in all walks of life in this country to critically self-assess, my hon. Friend is right to say that we should be moving towards a point where Government and MPs and Parliament critically self-assess what the consequences of our actions have been over decades past.

Pete Wishart: Again, my hon. Friend is spot-on. We should be proofing anything we suggest and put through, and assessing the impact and effect it might have and any unintended consequences on communities we represent. If we were to do that, we would start to make progress.
	What does the Bill do? It is specifically designed to tackle the threat posed by the so-called Islamic State, which, according to the Home Secretary, has given energy and a renewed sense of purpose to subversive Islamist organisations and radical leaders in Britain. No kidding, Madam Deputy Speaker. What does this rush Bill propose that is different from all the others? It has got all the usual features, of course, because they are the bedrock—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with the 7 o’clock motion, I will come back to him so that he can complete his speech.
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day’s sitting, the Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Ten o’clock.—(Damian Hinds.)
	Question agreed to.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to Dangerous Drugs.—(Damian Hinds.)
	Question agreed to.
	Debate resumed.
	Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Pete Wishart: I thought that I was going to get one of my traditional and routine tickings-off from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that it was just an interruption for the 7 o’clock motion.

Dawn Primarolo: It is the season of good will, Mr Wishart.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful for the early Christmas cheer.
	To return to the Bill, what new measures does it contain? I suppose that its unique selling point is the introduction of temporary exclusion orders. They are a relatively new feature, and I do not think that there has been much discussion of them. They are designed to ban British citizens who are suspected of travelling abroad to fight for terror groups from re-entering the UK, and they involve the cancellation of travel documents and the inclusion of such individuals on watch lists and no-fly lists. The Bill allows the cancellation of passports at the border for up to 30 days. The police and border forces will be able to seize the passports and tickets of British citizens if they suspect that those individuals intend to engage in terrorism-related activities at their destination.
	That all moves us quite conveniently and neatly towards the idea of statelessness, which we have looked at in relation to other matters that we have debated in the House, and which seems to be the drift and the trend. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me where we have got with the 30 days issue. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s speech, in which she said clearly that the Government are in control of allowing people back in. Well, we have heard about some of the difficulties with that. What happens if there is a breakdown of bilateral relationships with other nations that are not prepared to play along with the UK’s game? Surely, an effective state of statelessness will emerge.
	The Bill includes the stronger enforcement of TPIMs, including an ability for the authorities to force suspects to move to another part of the country, which amounts to internal exile. There is no great difference between that and the main feature of Labour’s control orders. The Bill also contains curious stuff about colleges and universities, and the expectation that our higher education institutions will prevent individuals from being drawn into terrorism. The measures include banning extremist speakers from campus grounds. How that is to be achieved without massive impacts on academic freedom and freedom of speech in higher education institutions is beyond me. I am looking forward to guidance about how those freedoms will be maintained and guaranteed. Our universities and colleges have already started to raise concerns. I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) who said only yesterday that there was concern about how the proposal would be represented in colleges and universities. We have to be careful about how we pursue such a measure.
	Perhaps most controversially, the Bill contains measures to require internet service providers to retain data on internet protocol addresses to enable authorities to identify individual users. That brings us neatly to the ongoing concern about, and the trend towards, the Home Secretary’s much-coveted snoopers charter. We are all in the business of doing all that we can to keep the people of our nation safe and secure, but that does not always mean that we must necessarily agree with everything that the Home Secretary says from the Dispatch Box. Some of us might even have a different way of doing things and different suggestions about how to get the balance right between assuring our safety and security and making sure that there is no compromise on our civil liberties. That is why in Scotland, where we have specific responsibilities on that agenda, we take a different view about how it can be better progressed. In Scotland, we want to ensure that our police and our other public bodies have the tools they need not only to tackle and prevent terrorism but to maintain a community where civil liberties are respected and where measures that are introduced are proportionate and have full community support. We have our own separate and distinct legal system in Scotland, and we have a range of devolved responsibilities. We have responsibilities for delivering large parts of the agenda in the Bill, particularly on the Prevent side. Once again, we have seen an almost total lack of consultation between this Government and the Scottish Government, who have specific responsibilities for delivering large swathes of the Bill because of devolved competencies.

Angus MacNeil: Does my hon. Friend think—this is emerging in his speech—that in the seven Bills he has mentioned, and in the responses of both the Labour and Conservative Governments over the years, the reaction has been, “Must do something, although we are not sure what.”? That seems to be the driving policy. There is not much thought in their policy, but the policy is, “Must do something.” It is probably headlines driving the policy.

Pete Wishart: That “must do something” feeling has probably increased as we approach an election year. The Conservative Government have gone a bit more cautiously and trodden a little more gently and carefully into this area than the previous Labour Government.
	The Labour Government went all guns blazing straight into the Labour anti-civil libertarian state they so carefully constructed and made sure they managed so effectively. The Conservatives have played this game a little differently, but we are now into an election year. So what is a good move to get people overexcited about political issues? What is the approach to take? It is, “Get a terror Bill, to make sure you are seen to be hard on this. That will differentiate us, and challenge the Labour party and all our political opponents to say we are doing this wrong.” That is not a game we have a particular interest in playing.
	So we have this idea and this conversation we are having between the Government and Scottish Ministers, but the Scottish Government did not even get sight of some of the measures in this Bill on First Reading. I know that the Minister has been in touch with our new Justice Secretary, so he will know the unhappiness there is in Scotland about some aspects of all this. The Scottish Government have said that because we have responsibility for the public bodies mentioned in so many bits of this Bill, we want proper consultation. We are not interested in this fast-tracking and getting it through as quickly as possible because it is an election year—we want to do this right. Where we have devolved responsibilities for delivering this agenda, we want to make sure that the public bodies accountable to our Parliament will be properly consulted, so that we can shape up and make sure we have proper agenda. We have therefore asked the Minister to take Scotland out of the Prevent side of these measures. The schedules relating to Scottish public bodies have already been dropped in part of this. I suggest, and I hope the Minister may be open to this approach, that he seeks to ensure that we at least have the opportunity to engage with our public bodies and consult them properly, and to make the right decisions that suit our agenda and our responsibilities. That would be good. Sometimes we tend to look at things such as the Prevent strategy in a proper, holistic way, considering how public bodies could also promote cohesion, well-being and democracy. That is the way we differ on looking at these things, and we hope the Government follow our approach.
	Let me say something about my commitment and my reason for taking this on. David Haines, the British man so brutally executed by ISIS forces in Iraq, was a constituent of mine. His family were in Perth, and I was at the memorial service that was held. His killing was an appalling act and it brought this right home to my community. The way the people of Perth responded to what they had observed—the brutal, appalling murder—was nothing short of magnificent. They made sure that David Haines was properly commemorated and that his memory will endure in Perth, and it was fantastic. So I know how these issues are brought home to specific communities and I have seen the wonderful way communities unite to make sure they gather around that family, making sure they are supported, and try to understand. But the most impressive thing for me was that I saw a real attempt to understand what was going on within this—more so than probably the Government have done. People wanted to understand why this happened in our community and what special conditions led to this happening in a small, sleepy little city such as Perth.
	Every single one of us in this House has a job of work to do to keep our communities safe and to keep brave people such as David Haines safe. David Haines
	went out there to help the world become a better place and to ensure that communities without help and assistance could be helped and assisted. All of us have a responsibility in this regard, so I will take no lectures from anybody in this House about being soft on terrorism or about our Government taking no interest in this matter. We all have an interest in this matter. We might not all agree on everything. I vehemently disagreed with the approach of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles when she was in the Labour Government. I was keen on what the Conservative-led Government were doing at first, but I am less keen now. But let us all work together. We need to look at this whole thing holistically. We should take responsibility for the things that we do wrong and challenge the horrible extremism and ideology that exist in our communities, but let us do it together, do it sensibly and do it constructively.

Yasmin Qureshi: It is a pleasure to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), some of which I agreed with. Let me place it on the record that I also agreed with some of the things that were said by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and, of course, my Labour colleagues.
	I ask the House to bear with me for a few moments while I explain what I did before I became a Member of Parliament. It is important for the House to know where I am coming from when I make the observation that I am about to make. I was a prosecutor for nearly 15 years, so I am not shy of having strong laws in the criminal justice system. I do not have a problem with people being prosecuted for crimes that they have committed and being sentenced appropriately. If people commit a serious offence, they should receive a serious sentence. I do not think there is a problem in having laws that deal with criminality.
	I understand the position from which Governments approach this subject. Obviously, they have an obligation and a duty to protect their citizens. That duty must, of course, be balanced with individual rights and civil liberties. I know that it can be a difficult balance to strike, especially in these challenging times. Perhaps it is at times of pressure that a civilised society can be recognised. When a civilised society loses sight of its liberties, it is giving in to the terrorists. It is saying, “You have succeeded, because we have put up all these fences and brought in all this legislation.”
	I ask the Government to consider the following points. On the issue of temporary exclusion orders, there should be proper legal and judicial oversight. There should be a categorical commitment that a UK national who is overseas will be allowed back into the country. At the end of the day, everybody knows that, under international law, a person will be stateless if they cannot come back to the country of which they are a national.
	Earlier, I put a question directly to the Home Secretary. As I understand it, she said not that people would be stopped from coming back to the country, but that they would have to go on a managed programme, by which she meant that they could come back on our terms and conditions. The question is, what happens to the person who does not want to accept our terms? We can deal with them if there is evidence of criminality against
	them, as we can prosecute and, if necessary, imprison them. But what if no criminal allegation can be proved? What happens then if they want to return? The proposed legislation suggests that they can return only on our terms. I ask the Government to reconsider that concept in its entirety. If they want a managed return, the person who is subjected to the order should be able to go to the courts to challenge it. I do not mean the judicial review process, because that is incredibly complex and the Government have recently passed quite a lot of stringent rules about whether people can have legal aid for judicial review.
	The process of challenging a managed return order should not be dissimilar to that which applies when someone is charged with a criminal offence. They can apply for legal aid, they can go to court and they can contest the allegations against them. That element should be strengthened in dealing with people who are excluded. Legal aid should be available in a very simple system, allowing people to challenge the orders in the proper courts, as opposed to having to go through the very circuitous route of judicial review. As a lawyer, I can tell hon. Members that that is not an easy route. A straightforward application to challenge orders, such as that which people would make in any other example of criminality, is the right way forward. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Opposition Front Benchers, when tabling amendments to the Bill, will consider the judicial safeguards.
	The second part of the proposals involves taking away people’s passports or travel documents when they are travelling. I understand the rationale for that. A father or mother might ring up, saying that their child is travelling across the country and might be heading for somewhere they should not, and asking whether something could be done. I accept that it might not be possible, in the space of a few hours, to get a court order to ensure that there is a legal sanction behind the removal of that person’s documents. However, the proposal that the police or law enforcement agencies could keep the documents for up to 14 days—even after 14 days people might only be able to go to the courts for a judicial challenge—needs to be reconsidered.
	Although there might be an urgent need for such a provision for the first few hours, or even for a day, the judicial oversight should kick in within a certain time—say 48 hours—of the stoppage taking place, rather than 14 days, which is what the Bill proposes if I understand it correctly. Even after those 14 days, the person would only be able to challenge whether the police officer had been diligent. They will say that they are diligent; what needs to be challenged is whether taking away the document was a right and proper decision. We know from history that whenever powers of stop and search are introduced, they are always abused and they are quite often never properly implemented. We therefore need to be careful about these draconian powers and how they are exercised. Adding a legal and judicial element to the process is necessary so that we have a balance between protecting the citizen from criminality and retaining people’s liberties. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that. At the same time, it is pointless to have rights if people do not have the legal aid with which to exercise them. I hope that that will accompany this.
	On TPIMs, I agree with the Home Secretary’s new definition involving reasonable probability. The standard of proof has gone up, but it should be even tighter. Provisions such as TPIMs take away people’s liberties and they should be able to challenge that. I know that people can challenge those orders in law. Members might not be aware that, interestingly enough, quite a lot of people who challenged their TPIMs in court were released from those orders, and that was with a very low standard of proof, as we call it in the legal system. I am very pleased that the standard of proof will go up and I think that there should be clear judicial safeguards in this regard as well.
	I now come to my final observations on a point that is causing me some concern—the provisional statutory framework for universities, prisons, schools, nurseries and so on, intended to prevent radicalisation. It always makes me uncomfortable when the state tries to enter the arena of monitoring and controlling thought and discussion. Other hon. Members have alluded to the fact that some universities are worried that that might prevent the proper, sensible discussion of issues. There are many in this country, and across the world at large, who hold views that could be called socially or morally conservative, religiously conservative, or even radical; but there is a big difference between holding socially conservative views and getting to the stage of committing a criminal offence—that is a big jump.
	Although I will wait to see the Home Secretary’s guidelines, I am concerned about another proposal in the legislation. If an institution does not carry out what it has been asked to do, or fails to monitor it properly, the Secretary of State can direct them to do it. It would be helpful to know what we are talking about in relation to the guidelines. I say this not to criticise, because I know that all Governments, of whatever complexion, do this, but when this type of legislation is introduced, we should have more time to analyse and discuss the matters sensibly and get the details. Regrettably, that has not happened in this case. We have not had enough time. I know that three days will be set aside for debate in Committee of the whole House, but we really should have had more time to discuss the measures in the Bill before it came to the Chamber today. I therefore look forward to hearing the Government’s proposals in relation to libraries, universities and other institutions.
	Let me move on to my concerns about the state interfering in thought processes. The provision might look, on the face of it, very comforting and reassuring, but will it actually achieve anything? Will it be effective, or are we just bringing in another layer of rules and regulations without thinking about whether they will work? I think that organisations should be told that these dangers exist, and I do not see anything wrong with sending out guidelines that say, “This is the kind of thing you’re looking for,” but I think they should be voluntary, not statutory. I think that resources should be made available to help institutions deal with radicalisation and extremist views.
	Although everybody is talking about radicalisation in general, we know that we are talking about a tiny number of people who call themselves Muslims but are doing things that I can quite honestly say most of us just do not connect with in any shape or form. As the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, of the 2.5 million to 3 million Muslims in this country,
	those people number in the hundreds. Many of them are young, and most of their information seems to come from the internet.
	It is right that there should be a counter-narrative. The state should not set up a unit specifically to deal with that, but there is nothing wrong with going into a Department and putting in place funding, for example, to look at countering the narratives. Many Members have talked today about certain institutions that have been looking at radicalisation, such as the one in King’s college, but there are other people who have looked into it who, perhaps because what they say is sometimes a little broader, do not get enough attention.
	A famous American academic, Professor Kundnani, has looked in detail at all aspects of radicalisation, and one of his suggestions—this is very pertinent—is that in universities and places of education there should be spaces for wide-ranging discussion of religious ideology, identity and foreign policy. Those spaces should not be undercut by the fear that expression of radical views will attract the attention of intelligence agencies or counter-terrorism police. If we scare people so that when they come out with some radical or conservative idea they will not discuss it, we will never find out what is going on in their head and never be able to challenge them and say, “Actually, your narrative is wrong.” A safe space should be allowed for that discussion to be had.

Khalid Mahmood: When we start to engage with those with radical views that differ substantially from the views of the general Muslim community and of Islam, allowing them access at that level sets us back, because instead of putting their views forward, they put the whole radical doctrine and ideology forward, which weakens the entire case. We have done too much of that here in the past. We need to start to tackle those with very different and radical views that need to be addressed.

Yasmin Qureshi: I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend. Yes, some people have radical views that we would all disagree with, but unless we hear what they have to say, we cannot challenge them.
	I speak to a lot of young people all the time, especially young Muslim males, and I listen to what they say. Sometimes they come out with things that do not make me think for a minute that they are going to commit a crime, but show that they have a view about certain issues. I sit there and explain to them, “That is not right and this is how it should be,” and they listen. That kind of discussion is important, and we cannot stifle it.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making an interesting contribution. Does she think that young Muslims, particularly young Muslim men, sometimes feel rather patronised because the only concern of the whole world is the danger of their being radicalised? I have had many discussions with young Muslim men at mosques in my constituency, and in schools and colleges, and their concerns are jobs, housing, health, and career prospects. They sometimes feel that they are being unfairly singled out as a danger to society, when they want to make a contribution just like everybody else.

Yasmin Qureshi: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He will not be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with him.
	As somebody who talks to a lot of young Muslim males, let me explain that they are very fearful and frightened at the moment. We see all the headlines in the newspapers about what happened at the school in Birmingham, for example. Yes, what happened at that school was wrong, but pictures are painted that every Muslim school in the country is acting in that way, or that every single young Muslim male is behaving in a certain way. That kind of narrative is dangerous. Sometimes we in this place need to be careful about what we say as well, because these people are very vulnerable.
	While I have no doubt that people I talk to are not going to do anything stupid or wrong at all, it is appropriate to be able to discuss things. In talking about a safe space, I do not mean that people should be allowed to say things unchallenged, but that we should hear what they have to say and then challenge them and tell them that they are wrong. Unless we confront people’s difficult thoughts, we will not be able to challenge them. That is how we deal with this. Professor Kundnani has suggested that proper research should be carried out with some of the people who have returned from Syria and other places to find out their motivation for going there.
	Governments and politicians can certainly do a lot more to furnish a counter-narrative. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, we should see on the internet a counter-narrative to the other narrative. That is very important. As the Home Secretary has said, many imams and scholars of Islam living in this country post on websites and blogs and clearly state that the stuff that ISIL and others are doing is completely un-Islamic. It is important for the Government and institutions to push what those people and scholars have written to the forefront of the media, so that the country at large and young people can be educated by it.

Julian Lewis: That is precisely the sort of role I see the Government playing—not setting themselves up as Islamic scholars, but giving support to those authentic Islamic scholars who can speak with authority.

Yasmin Qureshi: I agree. I will finish by saying that there are people in this country who can help to create the counter-narrative, which is really important. If we sort out the narrative, half of this Bill will not be necessary.

Diana Johnson: The Home Secretary set out in her opening remarks why she believes it is necessary to introduce this Bill. She referred to the threat level, which has increased, and to the number of terrorist threats thwarted by our intelligence and security services and the police. She also referred to the need for the Bill’s additional powers to keep this country safe.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, said that we will work with the Home Secretary: “We agree with her on some things, but we do not think she has got it right yet on others, and amendments are needed. Parliament as a whole must be thoughtful and responsible, because our liberty and security depend on each other. We need both in a democracy to keep us safe.”
	This afternoon’s debate has been very thoughtful and responsible. The contributions of Members on both sides of the House have been of very high quality, and the debate has been very well informed and knowledgeable. The former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), started with a succinct but powerful speech. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), reminded the House of the need for effective scrutiny of legislation and the role the Committee can play in that regard. He was followed by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who is an esteemed member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who is also a member of the ISC and a former counter-terrorism Minister, said that the provisions were both necessary and proportionate.
	I will comment on Members’ contributions when I refer to specific provisions. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is another member of the ISC, and he was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), who speaks with such authority, as a member of the Muslim community, about his own experience in Birmingham, particularly with regard to schools and Operation Trojan Horse. He was followed by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and it is important to note that GCHQ is in his constituency. I think that all Members would want to pay tribute to the security and intelligence services for all the work they do, every day of the week and every week of the year, to keep us all safe. I think the hon. Gentleman is the Liberal Democrat spokesman on this issue and it was interesting to hear him say that he thought the Bill strikes broadly the right balance. He noted in particular the support for the data retention provisions.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who is a former Home Office Minister and another member of the ISC, spoke powerfully about radicalisation and the work of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s college to inform the debate. We then heard from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). We know, of course, that terrorism has touched Scotland in recent years, with the attack on Glasgow airport. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) spoke with her experience as a prosecutor and her knowledge of her community.
	I will now briefly refer to the specific contents of the Bill to pick up some of the issues raised in the debate. Part 1, which deals with exclusion and passports, introduces new powers to deal with the emerging threat from ISIL—it is known by various names—and the British citizens and residents who have gone out to fight for it. The level of the threat is unprecedented, and we accept the need for new powers.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles referred, very interestingly, to academic studies about those who go to fight but then want to return to this country, and she mentioned the three categories of the disturbed, the dangerous and the disillusioned. That will help to inform our debate on ensuring that the laws are proportionate and deal with the problems we face.
	As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary set out, we have some concerns about aspects of part 1. Strong powers must be accompanied by equally strong checks and balances, but such checks and balances are absent from the Bill.
	That issue was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, who made a very interesting comparison. He used the fact that a regime was put in place to ensure that there was judicial oversight, originally for control orders and then for TPIMs, to argue very effectively that we need to do something similar for exclusion orders. He also made a point about passports and possible claims for compensation, and I hope that the Minister for Security and Immigration will respond to that. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife also talked at length about exclusion orders and his concerns about interfering with the right of return.
	We will table amendments in Committee to strengthen part 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East asked whether we would do so, and I can reassure her that we will. We will also seek information about the exclusion power, as it is called in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary mentioned, the Prime Minister originally promised to exclude people from the United Kingdom, but the Home Secretary has said that the power is in fact about managing the reintroduction of individuals into the UK on certain terms. The process is important, but many questions remain about how part 1 will work, and about whether the powers will be used proportionately.
	On part 2 on TPIMs, we of course welcome the Government U-turn. Having looked at the evidence, they are reintroducing relocation powers. The Opposition have called for that to be done for several years. The last Tory Home Secretary, the noble Lord Howard, has also called for it, as have both the current and the former independent reviewers of terrorism legislation. We are therefore very pleased by that change, and we also welcome the proposals to strengthen TPIMs in various ways.
	We will seek clarification from the Minister on certain issues in Committee, including the 200-mile relocation limit and firearms licenses, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. There is concern about the fact that firearms licensing officers did not know in the past that someone was on a TPIM.

Theresa May: indicated dissent.

Diana Johnson: I am very pleased that the Home Secretary is shaking her head, but it would be helpful if the Minister enlightened us about why the Government feel the need to make a provision specifically about that issue.
	Part 3 is about data retention. We know that telephone records have always shown who receives calls and from whom, and that it has always been possible to link a number to the individual who owns the line. The Opposition think that it is appropriate for equivalent records to be kept for e-mails and peer-to-peer sharing.
	As my right hon. Friend said, that issue is particularly important in relation to the National Crime Agency. It has IP addresses for about 20,000 individuals whom it suspects of accessing online child abuse images, but
	against whom it has not been able to follow through. We think that this power is urgently needed because, until the NCA can get the names of the 20,000 individuals, it will not know how many of them are known sex offenders, are working with children or are living with children. Those are the most basic checks that should be undertaken. The case of Myles Bradbury, which ended in the last 24 hours, should serve as an urgent reminder to the Government of the dangers of the NCA failing to follow up on leads. We accept what was said this evening about the drafting of clause 17. It should be looked at to improve the clarity.
	On part 5, we welcome the fact that Prevent is being put on a statutory footing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles made an excellent contribution on that and spoke, in particular, about the need for consistency and evaluation. It is important to show that whatever is put in place is working and having an effect. We are concerned that the guidance must be made available as soon as possible. Even if the guidance is in a draft format, it would be helpful to have it available when the Bill is in Committee over the next couple of weeks so that we can see what the Government’s thinking is on this issue.
	There is, of course, a need for the community to develop resilience and for us to get into the DNA of the community, as a number of hon. Members said. The point has been made strongly this evening that the Department for Communities and Local Government has not taken the lead on the Prevent agenda in the way that the Home Secretary had perhaps hoped. It is therefore important that Prevent is put on a statutory footing. There are lessons to be learned from the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr of schools in Birmingham in relation to Prevent and the duties that will be put on schools.
	Finally, the hon. Member for New Forest East gave a thoughtful speech about the need for a counter-narrative at a national level, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley spoke about how private companies can be engaged in getting that message out. That area needs to be developed.
	In conclusion, this Second Reading debate has been constructive. It has highlighted where there is support for the provisions in the Bill and where changes are needed. It has raised a series of specific questions for the Government to answer in the coming stages of the Bill’s passage. We must act proportionately, ensuring that the balance between security and liberty is dealt with properly, and that all the checks and balances are in place, in order to secure as much support as possible for the proposals.

James Brokenshire: In responding to what has been a very good debate, it is important to underline the context and background to our discussions. As the Home Secretary emphasised in opening today’s debate, the terrorism threat to the UK is considerable and as bad as it has been at any time since 9/11. That is the assessment that we have been given. It is our duty as a Parliament to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the tools and powers that they need to keep us safe.
	I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Many of them have great knowledge of the subject matter and experience in their communities, which has ensured that the debate has had great breadth and has touched on many issues. It is notable that we have heard from four members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, a further member of the Home Affairs Committee, a former Attorney-General and other Members who have great knowledge, expertise and experience. That has contributed enormously to the debate. I believe that if we continue in that vein and with that approach, the Bill will benefit.
	It is important to underline some of the themes of the debate, such as the need to ensure both privacy and security. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) made that point. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and should be mutually reinforcing—one goes with the other. Security brings us liberty, and liberty is basically what we are trying to provide and protect through the security arrangements.
	The issues of proportionality and necessity have also been mentioned, and we believe that they are reflected in the measures in the Bill. We look forward to the House’s forthcoming scrutiny and examination of those measures. I note that, almost without exception, the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have recognised and understood the importance of the powers in the Bill and broadly supported them, even if some would like to see further focus and reflection on specific aspects of them. On a subject as vital as national security, and confronting and combating terrorism and the extremism that may lead to it, it is right that the House presents a united front to those who would seek to do us harm. The debate this afternoon and this evening has done precisely that.
	The threat that ISIL presents to us is serious, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, but it is not the only threat we face. There are a range of other terrorist organisations, including Boko Haram, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Shabaab, and we must also protect ourselves from the threat of home-grown extremists who have been radicalised here in the UK. I recognise some of the points that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) made, but the threat is not static. It is dynamic—it constantly evolves and changes. That is why it is right that the Government continue to challenge ourselves on what more we can do through legislation, but also through other processes such as the extremism taskforce. That is reflected in the Bill.
	It important to recognise the excellent job that the police, MI5 and others do in keeping us safe through the actions that they take day in, day out and week in, week out. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who has GCHQ in his constituency, made that point well. I should put on record, as other Members have, our recognition of and thanks to all those who work so hard to ensure the security of this country.
	Some broader themes were also raised, such as the issue of counter-ideology and narrative. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) made points about ISIL, which is clearly neither Islamic nor a state. The extremists who seek to advance its poisonous narratives do not do so in the name of Islam, which is a
	peaceful religion practised by millions of people around the globe. It is important to underscore that clear message from this House—we recognise the threat, but ISIL’s narrative is twisted and poisonous and does not represent Islam, which is one of the great religions.
	On the issue of a counter-narrative, a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), mentioned communities standing up. It is important to recognise that 100 imams have stood together and signed a letter absolutely condemning the actions of ISIL and others. That has shown a community coming together, and it has used social media to do so. It has used hashtags such as #NotInMyName and #MakingAStand to ensure that a counter-message is delivered in a way that is likely to reach those who need to be reached. Of course we want more of that, but it is important to recognise the stances and responses that the community has given to confronting and combating some of the sheer evil that has been perpetrated, and how it is making a stand in a direct and powerful way.

Keith Vaz: The Minister is making a sensible and thoughtful speech and his tone is absolutely right. May I put to him a point that I put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)? Has any research been done on the tipping point and the moment a law-abiding citizen suddenly becomes a radical jihadist? We have a lot of experience in counter-terrorism and have spent a huge amount of money on the issue. Are we any closer to knowing where that profile changes?

James Brokenshire: This is a complex subject and we cannot point to one individual factor for a specific individual. We can examine the profiles and backgrounds of terrorists who have been convicted for their crimes, but it is hard to generalise. We can point to individual factors or circumstances that may have contributed over a number of years, and some contributions to the debate have been about the vulnerability of certain individuals. Equally, for whatever reason, some people have sought to create an identity by allying themselves to an extremist organisation in some way. There is good understanding, but answers will be different for different circumstances and individuals, and it is important to understand the layers and complexity. Equally, we must look at the safeguarding agenda. Our work through Prevent is to ensure that front-line professionals are acutely aware of identifying any issues, so that people are directed to support and measures and do not progress down the path towards radicalisation and terrorism. We will continue that important work.

Khalid Mahmood: Following on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, a study has been done by Professor Kam Bhui of Queen Mary university of 600 people from London and Bradford—it should have been Birmingham, but it was not—on a clinical and psychological basis. That provides a certain way forward although it does not address the issue of ideology.

James Brokenshire: That is why it is so important that we continue to see that response from the community and families. The Home Secretary mentioned FAST—Families Against Stress and Trauma—and the good work
	it seeks to do to encourage families who are concerned about a loved one or someone they know to have the confidence to come forward to talk to someone. That may not necessarily be the police—it may be another agency or someone from the community—but where there are concerns we should act earlier to prevent someone from moving down a pathway that might lead them to be radicalised or to want to make the journey to Syria or Iraq. We must give a clear message that that is not the way to help or assist in that conflict.
	On oversight and engagement, I am keen to ensure that we respond to Select Committees—indeed, I will give evidence on the Bill tomorrow morning to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Home Affairs Committee will also hold an evidence session tomorrow, and we will respond to inquiries from various Committees that have an interest in this matter.
	Today’s main contributions have largely focused on the temporary exclusion order and Prevent, so I will concentrate my remaining remarks on those issues. On discussions with our international partners, as the Home Secretary made clear in her opening remarks we are actively engaged with a number of countries, and those discussions have been positive thus far in relation to practical operations. On the ability of someone to request a return, I point right hon. and hon. Members to clause 5(1), which states that the Secretary of State “must” issue a permit to return. The concept is of a managed return when a request is made, and the only circumstances in which a permit can be refused is if a person fails to attend an interview with a police or immigration officer. Therefore, the sense that we will deprive people of their citizenship or make them stateless does not bear examination, because they will have that right to return and the ability to make that request.
	The speedier mechanisms can operate in circumstances around deportation. We will seek to cancel someone’s travel documents and to ensure that they can be put on watch lists, so that they can be met and we know when that return will take place. That is our stance. I therefore tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that we are not seeking to say that someone cannot return in perpetuity. As we have made clear, those concerned will have the right to return to the UK. We believe and are confident that the measures we propose are compliant with our international obligations and relevant human rights legislation.

Menzies Campbell: But an individual can return only under the terms specified by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Can the Minister think of any other occasions or circumstances when the right of return has had conditions attached?

James Brokenshire: The power rightly reflects the challenge and threat we see from those returning from areas of conflict. They might have been radicalised and might have been acting on the instructions of a terrorist organisation. That is why we judge that the power is necessary. Equally, we know that the power deserves appropriate scrutiny, which I know the House will give the measures.
	We think it is important to put Prevent on a statutory basis to ensure that there is greater consistency in the manner in which it is provided. It will also ensure that
	organisations recognise their responsibilities. The measure is about preventing terrorism. It is important to understand the specific frame in which Prevent exists, and to underline the work Prevent has undertaken since 2011. It has delivered 180 community-based projects; it ensures that front-line officers understand the context; and, in the 2013-14 financial year, Prevent local co-ordinators in our 30 Prevent priority areas worked with more than 250 mosques, 50 faith groups and 70 community groups.
	In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary addressed a concern that has been expressed about university campuses. Her point was that universities’ commitment to freedom of speech and the rationality underpinning the advancement of knowledge mean that they represent one of our most important safeguards against extremist views and ideologies. We need to ensure that they take their responsibilities seriously and have the basic framework in place. That is what the guidance will seek to enunciate. I hear and understand the point made on giving greater clarity in the guidance. It is our intention not only to publish the guidance, but to put it out to consultation, to ensure that we receive appropriate inputs.
	To the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I say that it is the Government’s intention that the measure will apply to Scotland, on the basis that counter-terrorism and national security are reserved. The provisions will be subject to further consultation and discussion with Ministers in the devolved Administrations, which is apt, right and proper.
	In conclusion, I reiterate that the threat we face from terrorism is real and severe. The collapse of Syria and the emergence of ISIL in Iraq not only threatens the stability of the middle east, but presents a clear danger in the UK. The Bill will ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep us safe. I hope the House agrees that this is a matter of the upmost importance. We are seeking to ensure that the Bill is passed speedily but not over-speedily, so that there is proper consideration. We believe that the time allowed in Committee and on Report will ensure that the House can do that. We will ensure the swift passage of this vital legislation, but in a way that enables appropriate examination. We recognise and appreciate that the Opposition will, as they have said, do that constructively. We look forward to working with them in that regard. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill:
	Committal 
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	Proceedings in Committee 
	(2) Proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall be completed in three days.
	(3) The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
	(4) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	Table
	
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day 
			 Part 2, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Schedules relating to Part 2 Three hours after the commencement of   proceedings on the first day 
			 Part 3, new Clauses relating to Part 3, new Schedules relating to Part 3, Part 4, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Schedules relating to Part 4 Six hours after the commencement of those proceedings 
			 Second day 
			 Chapter 1 of Part 1, new Clauses relating to Chapter 1 of Part 1, new Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 1 Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the second day 
			 Chapter 2 of Part 1, new Clauses relating to Chapter 2 of Part 1, new Schedules relating to Chapter 2 of Part 1 Six hours after the commencement of those proceedings 
			 Third day 
			 Clause 21, Schedule 3, Clauses 22 to 27, new Clauses relating to Chapter 1 of Part 5, new Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 5, Clauses 28 to 30, Schedule 4, Clauses 31 to 33, new Clauses relating to Chapter 2 of Part 5, new Schedules relating to Chapter 2 of Part 5 Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the third day 
			 Part 6, new Clauses relating to Part 6, new Schedules relating to Part 6, Part 7, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill The moment of interruption on the third day 
		
	
	Consideration and Third Reading 
	(5) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(6) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
	(7) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	Programming committee 
	(8) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
	Other proceedings 
	(9) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question agreed to.

COUNTER-TERRORISM AND SECURITY BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
	(a) payments in respect of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board;
	(b) expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State;
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided;
	(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Dangerous Drugs

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question agreed to.

TACKLING CORRUPTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Stephen Barclay: Tonight’s debate on the Government’s approach to tackling corruption is timely for a number of reasons. It builds on the progress and leadership given by the Prime Minister at the G8 and G20. It comes as we anticipate the long-awaited Government report into corruption, which has been delayed for a year but is due out, we understand, later this month. It comes as London is hosting a conference of 14 overseas territories discussing their approach to corruption, and it comes just a day after changes applying to extraction companies on disclosing payments came into legal force.
	The debate is not just timely; it is relevant to London specifically. London is home to more than 250 foreign banks, the most of any financial centre. It is the largest currency trading centre in the world, processing 18% of cross-border transactions. In 2013, the then regulator, the Financial Services Authority, estimated that the level of money being laundered through London and the UK was between £23 billion and £57 billion. Indeed, the Home Secretary used the £23 billion figure when she gave a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, which suggests that the Government accept the scale of the challenge. To put those figures into global context, the African Union estimates the cost of corruption in Africa to be $148 billion and the World Bank estimates that up to $1 trillion is paid in bribes. We know this is a serious issue, and that is why it is timely that Parliament should address it.
	I want to highlight three broad themes. The first theme is resourcing: how to get investigating corruption right; how we give life to the Government’s plan and some of the challenges they face on the transfer of key personnel to the National Crime Agency. Secondly, how do we improve the policy in terms of industry, so that we move from a quantity approach, particularly on suspicious activity reports, to one based more on quality and targeted at the more serious multi-million pound cases rather than low-value transactions? Thirdly, I want to highlight a number of loopholes in the legislative framework, given that there will be the Second Reading of the Serious Crime Bill in the next week or two.
	On resourcing, will the Minister clarify whether colleagues in the Department for International Development have asked for reassurance on key financial investigators moving to the NCA, particularly from the proceeds of crime unit and the City of London anti-corruption units? Is it the case that, to date, only two of the 35 key investigators have agreed to move across? Such expertise takes time to grow. If we are to have a new plan, there is clearly a risk if the experts are not there to implement it. I understand that, in a letter to the Home Secretary on 20 November, the Bond group of non-governmental organisations also highlighted this issue. Given that police officers do not TUPE across and terms and conditions are less favourable, is the Minister confident that the staff will move across? I understand that in the two years that the NCA has had the intelligence unit, not been a single investigation has resulted from that intelligence. We need to tackle the concerns about resourcing.
	Will the Minister update the House on the challenges of buying in resource, if that is seen as a short-term fix? The case of Malawi and “cashgate” is a good example. DFID paid for a British firm, Baker Tilly, to provide expert consultancy advice. The scandal is known as “cashgate”, but we have not recovered any cash. Has there been any enforcement? We gave £106 million—a significant amount—in aid to Malawi last year. How much has been spent on the investigation? Is it true that these consultants had no powers to require banks to disclose financial transactions or request intelligence from foreign Governments? If so, what are the constraints on using external consultants in respect of such investigations in the future?
	For policy reasons, the Government have decided not to pay for law enforcement out of money recovered from corruption investigations, but given we have fewer than 100 investigators—in the Serious Fraud Office, the proceeds of crime unit and the City of London unit—would that not make sense? It would allow us to conduct more investigations, which would be in the interests of the countries being defrauded.
	Will the Serious Crime Bill deal with the evidential test? It appears to be set too high and so acts as a cost disincentive to the bringing of cases, which is compounded by the time scales. Where there is a financial institution with a complex, multi-jurisdictional case, perhaps spanning many years, law enforcement agencies have just 38 days to build a case to the satisfaction of the courts to block a payment. That is clearly insufficient. We could learn lessons from Guernsey and its approach in the Indonesian logging case. We need a mechanism of unexplained wealth orders to allow law enforcement agencies to stop the clock and allow time to investigate. Does the Minister accept that 38 days is wholly inadequate when it comes to building a complex legal case on payments?
	On the relationship with industry, the suspicious activity report procedure is based on regulatory compliance, rather than investigation. The industry pays out millions of pounds for document checks on one’s granny in respect of low-value transactions, while serious cases receive little scrutiny. Of the 316,527 serious activity reports filed by banks last year, just 110 were looked at by the proceeds of crime unit. The banks do not want to exit profitable clients and see them go to other firms, so we have this defensive filing of suspicious activity reports, 95% of which are not acted on by law enforcement agencies—they just sit on file for intelligence. It is not cost-effective.
	Last Thursday, on the BBC’s “Question Time”, the Chief Whip—the Whip might want to sharpen her pencil—said that Facebook had been aware of intelligence relating to a terrorist attack but had not passed it on. Do the Government know whether the 300,000 or so suspicious activity reports filed by banks include any transfers of funds to people complicit in those attacks? We do not have the mechanism for filtering them effectively. Is that an issue of concern to the Government, particularly in the light of the discussion about Facebook?
	We need to shift away from this catch-all defensive policy to one based on targeting high-value corruption cases, and we need to work more in partnership with financial institutions, and combine that with a greater fear factor in respect of money laundering. Does the Minister share my concern that the current consultation relating to the Financial Conduct Authority seems to
	be repeating past errors? We had a Financial Services Authority report in 2011 that showed problems relating to the money laundering of banks, and two weeks ago we had an FCA report showing again that small banks were failing on money laundering. If we go back to the 1990s, 23 banks were complicit in money laundering, yet no action was taken.
	It might surprise the House to know that over the last decade, only two fines appear to have been imposed against individuals for money laundering, the highest of which was for £17,500. How confident is the FCA that, particularly given the number of foreign banks in the UK, we have the right approach to money laundering even today?

Jim Shannon: I appreciate the opportunity to intervene. The hon. Gentleman refers to money laundering. In Northern Ireland, over some 30 years of a terrorist campaign, it was clear that paramilitaries were involved in it. A wealth of experience was built up by police officers both from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and from the present Police Service of Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman wants to enable more prosecutions for money laundering, does he think it might be a good idea for the Government and the Department to take on some of those officers who have now retired and take advantage of their expertise to bring more prosecutions for money laundering?

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about how we learn from other jurisdictions in other territories. Italy is another example, with its experience of dealing with the mafia. The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience of the challenges within Northern Ireland where there is a great deal of expertise, from which we can learn.
	On the fear factor for individuals, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards put forward very good proposals, allowing a reversal of the burden of proof, but it is still the case that money laundering reporting officers are often not seen enough within the organisation and, not being at executive level, they often do not control the budget. That risks repeating past mistakes. Let us look at HSBC and the problems it got into in Mexico. To what extent does the Minister believe that the current regime would ensure that at a group level executives would be liable individually for fines if similar mistakes were made today?
	The High Court recently heard with the Nigerian OPL 245 case, which was dealt with by Lady Justice Gloster. It reveals a current impediment that applies to the judiciary, which I would like to draw to the Minister’s attention. In her ruling, Lady Justice Gloster said:
	“I find as a fact that, from its incorporation and at all material times, Chief Etete had a sufficient beneficial interest in Malabu”.
	She refers to the well-known case of Malabu, a $1 billion oil fraud. One can only look at that judgment, which says that if Etete had the beneficial ownership, he must have had it from the point of origin when he was the Oil Minister of Nigeria. That is where the companies in beneficial ownership sat, having been set up in six days by a lawyer convicted in the French courts of money laundering. Yet Lady Justice Gloster could essentially adjudicate only over the spoils of that corruption. She had no power to do otherwise, because neither of the parties to the case claimed that the funds were corrupt.
	To what extent would the new plan put forward by the Government allow the judiciary greater powers where, in its judgment, a case that is being disputed is corrupt? That applies particularly in the arbitration courts, given the lack of transparency often seen in those proceedings.
	Of course, non-governmental organisations could act as a friend of the courts in theory, but cost pressures invariably make that very difficult, while the likes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 cannot be used to intervene unless there is a victim. If in this case the Nigerian Government are not of the view that they have been defrauded, very little can be done. We need to look at the way our courts operate in that regard.
	Property is another area. It has been suggested that 45% of London properties valued at over £2 million are currently owned by offshore companies. The Prime Minister has taken some positive measures relating to the register of beneficial ownership, but the Minister must realise that that is null and void when it comes to those properties owned by offshore companies.
	It is a well-known fact that beneficial ownership is very opaque, especially in the case of shell companies. Estate agents currently have no duties in relation to buyers, and even their duties in relation to the sellers who are their clients usually extend only to the offshore companies with which they are acting, or their lawyers. Would the Minister consider a requirement for beneficial ownership of property worth over £2 million to be disclosed to the Land Registry? She might even want to consider the imposition of a fine on offshore property-owning companies that did not wish to comply with the disclosure requirement—along the lines of those that were introduced as a result of recent banking regulatory changes—with the proceeds going to good causes. That simple measure could be applied over the next 12 months, and could bring a huge amount of transparency to the top end of the property market, where we know that money is being laundered.
	Let me now ask some questions about legislation. First, will the Minister update the House on the position of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, given the lack of transparency surrounding their plans? Consultations in the British Virgin Islands closed 300 days ago but nothing has been reported, and the same applies to the Cayman Islands. Secondly, it is feared that industry guidance might fetter the effectiveness of new United Kingdom law relating to the transparency of payments to Governments for the extraction industry. A QC’s opinion recently raised concern in that regard. Will the Home Office be making any representations to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the subject?
	Thirdly, will the Government make it a condition that the countries to which we give aid comply with the United Nations convention against corruption? In particular, will they provide global leadership in requiring the publication of asset declarations on politically exposed persons? The UN has pressed for that, and I do not understand why we are giving aid to countries without expecting them to comply with the convention. Fourthly, will the United Kingdom introduce administrative orders, such as those introduced by Switzerland and Canada, so that we can rapidly freeze assets in post-revolutionary circumstances?
	Let me end by referring to the troubling case of Sergei Magnitsky, about which concern has been raised with the Government by Members in all parts of the House, and on which there appears to have been a woeful lack of progress so far. The Minister will be well aware that the 25-year-old Russian lawyer was tortured to death in a Russian jail. I know that detailed forensic information has been given to the UK Government about British nationals who were complicit in the money laundering linked to his death, and that information has been provided by Hermitage Capital Management, but the UK authorities appear to have taken no action, despite a Back-Bench debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and supported by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and many others.
	Other Governments have given leadership, notably the United States Congress, but there has been a serious lack of action from the UK Government in relation to the proceeds of the tax fraud that was linked to Magnitsky’s torture and death. What reassurance can the Minister give that there will be a change of gear, and that amendments will be tabled to the Serious Crime Bill to give effect to it?

Karen Bradley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) on securing the debate. I must be honest: I will endeavour to respond to the many points that he has raised, but, given the time that is available, I suspect that I shall not be able to address them all. Let me reassure him, however, that my officials and I have heard everything that he has said, and I have already asked for a meeting with him to be arranged. I know that he has great expertise and experience in this regard, and I think it would be helpful to sit down with him and explore his comments and their practical implications. The figures he quoted in his speech show just how important it is that the Government tackle this issue, and I was interested to hear his points about the resourcing, having a targeted approach and dealing with loopholes. That offers a good structure to consider this matter by.
	This Government recognise that corruption harms society, undermines economic development and threatens democracy. The impact of corruption is disproportionate to the level and the frequency at which it occurs in the United Kingdom, and often has serious ramifications in terms of public confidence across the public and private sectors. I want to make it clear that the Government are totally and absolutely committed to tackling corruption in all its forms. As my hon. Friend highlighted, this Government are doing more than any before to tackle the blight of corruption both here in the UK and around the world. In our serious and organised crime strategy, which we published last year, we set out what the Government are doing to improve our anti-corruption systems and to stop organised criminals using corruption as a tool of their trade, and in our open government partnership national action plan we acknowledged that, although the UK already has good structures and legislation in place, there was more to do to improve our standing at home and better manage our reputation for dealing with corruption and bribery offences overseas.
	As part of that work, we committed to publishing a robust cross-Government anti-corruption plan that will bring greater co-ordination and coherence to the work that is already ongoing and the work we plan to take, from preventing corruption in the first instance to taking effective enforcement action when it arises, as well as increasing the protection of the public and private sectors. I am pleased to tell the House that we will publish that plan very shortly.
	My hon. Friend is also aware that the Prime Minister recently appointed my right hon. Friend Minister for Business and Enterprise as the Government’s anti-corruption champion, and he and I have been working together across Government to ensure that the commitments set out in our anti-corruption plan are fully implemented and make a real difference to some of the points that my hon. Friend raised tonight.
	It is also important to recognise, however, that we have not simply waited to publish a plan before starting work on these important issues. We already have some of the most comprehensive anti-bribery legislation in the world, and were recently recognised as one of only four active enforcers globally by Transparency International, one of the leading non-governmental organisations working in this area. Where we have found gaps in the legislation, such as in relation to police corruption, we have brought forward new measures to address them. My hon. Friend referred to the Serious Crime Bill, which has been through the other place and which will shortly receive its Second Reading here—at some point. In working through that Bill, we will be able to debate again many of the points raised and we will be able to look at how we can tighten our legislative framework as much as possible.
	My hon. Friend talked about transparency, which is also a key tool in the fight against corruption, and this Government have put transparency at the heart of our approach to reducing the opportunity for corruption. As my hon. Friend will know, measures are being taken through this House to establish a publicly accessible central register of company beneficial ownership. This will ensure that law enforcement and tax authorities have access to the information that will help them to tackle corruption, tax evasion and the laundering of the proceeds of crime. In my own professional experience before I came to this place as a tax accountant, beneficial ownership was one of those phrases I used on a frequent basis and was a great fan of. It is important to reiterate that the UK made beneficial ownership a cornerstone of our G8 presidency in 2013, so that we can tackle tax evasion and fraud and promote greater transparency of company beneficial ownership.
	Despite comprehensive international rules to prevent money laundering being in place, we recognise that some financial institutions failed to comply effectively with the requirements placed upon them, and we are determined to be a global leader in this space by taking forward legislation to ensure UK companies know who ultimately owns and controls them and that this information is made publicly available. I think we can all agree that greater transparency about who owns and controls our companies should make it more difficult to conceal an individual’s involvement in a company, and should act as a deterrent to crime. The points that my hon. Friend has made about ownership of property and other assets are vital if we are to stand as a world leader in tackling corruption.

Stephen Barclay: The measures that the Government have taken on beneficial ownership are hugely positive, but does the Minister accept that if almost half of all property in London worth more than £2 million is owned offshore, the measures will not provide transparency on beneficial ownership? Does she agree that property is a particular opportunity for the Government to extend their reach?

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend has highlighted a powerful fact, which brings home the challenge that we face. I would appreciate it if we could cover that point when we meet outside this place.
	The Government have taken steps to strengthen the law enforcement response to corruption. Last year, as I have said, we established the National Crime Agency to manage the overall law enforcement response to serious and organised crime, including bribery, corruption and associated offences such as money laundering. We have introduced measures to create a new offence of police corruption, and the Home Secretary has asked Major General Chip Chapman to chair a review of the police disciplinary system.
	The Government have also provided dedicated funding for UK law enforcement units to investigate illicit financial flows to the UK, which are linked to corrupt foreign officials from developing countries. My hon. Friend talked about funding from the Department for International Development for the various units, and he is right to highlight the importance of ensuring that we have a dedicated force working in that area that does not duplicate effort. In such a way, we can ensure that we get the most effective response from law enforcement specialists, who really know what they are doing and are first-class professionals in their field. That approach is recognised internationally as highly successful and innovative. To date, those units have restrained or confiscated more than £120 million of stolen funds, and further investigations and confiscations are under way. Our enforcement response must be the best that it can be, so we are reviewing the overall co-ordination and effectiveness of the UK’s enforcement response to cases of bribery and corruption. That work is ongoing, and Ministers will consider the findings in due course.
	My hon. Friend raised points regarding Malawi, and I would appreciate it if we could discuss that point further. If he can provide detailed information about individuals who might be involved, or any other information, it would really assist us in our work. [Interruption.] He is making comments from a sedentary position, but I am sure that if we discussed the matter, it would assist us all.
	I am conscious of the time, so I will quickly cover the suspicious activity reporting regime, which is a significant part of our work. Suspicious activity reports are a crucial source of information for law enforcement agencies, and they provide a mechanism for financial institutions and others in the regulated sector to obtain a statutory defence from a money-laundering prosecution when they report their suspicions and are granted consent to proceed with a transaction by the NCA. As someone who has worked in risk management at one of the major accounting firms, I remember the joys of having to deal with such things, so I understand the criticism that my hon. Friend’s has highlighted. The economic crime command in the National Crime Agency is working
	with banks. The Home Secretary and I attended a business breakfast hosted at the Bank of England to kick off the work that we are doing with the financial institutions to find appropriate and acceptable ways to help them to deal with the bureaucracy of SARs. My hon. Friend made an important point about the profile of the issue, and all financial institutions need to raise the profile of the issue internally and see it as a key part of their own mechanisms for dealing with corruption and bribery.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the proceeds of corruption, and there is much that I could say on the matter. Given the time, I will simply say that he made an important point about dealing with pre-regime changes and changes in regimes in other countries. When I attended, on behalf of the Government, the AFAR III—Arab Forum
	on Financial Recovery—conference about Arab countries in transition, it brought home to me the importance of making sure that we have the information that we need to enable us not only to restrain those assets but to seize them, and to return them to the countries that need the money.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge the work that the Government have done to tackle this important issue, and the improvements that we have recently initiated. I note the issues that he has raised, and I hope that our forthcoming measures will go some way towards addressing them. I look forward to debating the matter further with him.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.